A path to faith with science

[natureisawesome]

Some people don't think that faith and science are compatible. This is to demonstrate that is not the case and that science plays a part in helping to confirm God's existence and reveal his divine nature. This is to demonstrate one path to God. There is contained within both evidence for God's existence and attributes from the nature of the physical universe, and also evidence from direct communication from God and mankind.

Finding out whether God exists or not is not just for philosophers and genius scientists. it's something we all should try to learn and find out. If a loving God exists, there must be evidence that the average person can understand.

This is not completely exhaustive but a path formed using science, logic, and deductive reasoning. It also analyzes and critiques different philosophies and religions. It must be made clear that this is in no way meant to personally attack and harm any reader of this regardless of his religious or philosophical beliefs, but is a serious discourse with an effort show a path to the Christian God using science, logic, reason. This is of course biased just like you are, and doesn't claim to be unbiased. It does not either negate faith, but shows that faith in God is reasonable and not blind but rather based upon solid and infallible proofs. I by no means take full credit for producing this article but it was mostly from Christian and creationist resources.

After reading, I invite you to share your thoughts or objections in a serious and mature manner, and am open for debate and exchange of ideas. This is long (what do you expect?), so I don't suggest you rush through it. Take a seat, relax and smoke a bowl if that helps (but not to much you'll have to think quite a bit). Here we go.

To start, I must first build upon things which I know. I must really
dig down deep. In this world today, people doubt and are critical of so much, even their own existence. I will start from what I do know and build upon that. I'm starting with no preconceived notions and no special schools of thought etc.I'll be using an open mind, logic, honesty and common sense.

Now, all logic starts with at least one assumption. And although logic is exact, if you start from a faulty premise you could get incorrect results, so you have to be careful. In geometry proofs are called givens or axioms. These are facts which must be true but are nearly impossible to prove such as 1=1.

So what is it that we can assume? What is the most basic thing? What is it that you can say that you know for sure without a doubt? Sometimes it's hard to recognize, perhaps because we do it all the time, or perhaps it's because we lack an outside perspective. The most basic thing we can can know for sure is...

You are thinking.

Which is pretty basic. You can't say you know
anything more certain than that. No matter what you do, you're always thinking, even if you think that maybe you aren't you, you still are thinking about it. If it weren't true, you wouldn't be able to say it, or read it, or anything.

Now we know for a fact that you are thinking. This is definitely a
solid fact. Some people don't believe in black and white facts, but
rather a spectrum of grays. But close magnification of this spectrum would show black and white dots, and an even closer look would show the fabric of the paper, some stained with ink and some not. If we could look even more closely we could see the molecules of ink near the molecules of paper. And we could look down deeper and deeper.

Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not. The fact is you are thinking. Which leads us to our next assumption.

Those who think exist.

Now we have two givens which are assumed to be true.

1.you are thinking
2. Those who think exist.

And if you are thinking and if thinkers exist, then you exist. A firmly
grounded conclusion by deductive reasoning. This is very important to know and painfully obvious to many. Now because of a natural law of the universe we call time, we can come to our next conclusion.

Your thought requires the passage of time.

Now what we know as thought requires the passage of time, but it remains possible there are other, higher forms of thought. No matter how you define thought, it still requires the passage of time. It also doesn't matter how you define time. Because it's the effect of time that matters at this point, and not it's nature.
One of the implications of time is that it allows for beginnings and endings.

Now imagine you were like Helen Keller only worse. Imagine you were blind and deaf, and you have no senses at all, no outside stimulation, unable to recognize your bodies position. And you were that way from birth. You would never be able to know the outside world existed.

But how do we know? How do we know that anything exists outside of you? Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove. And besides, all evidence suggests that everything else is just as real as you.

The outside world exists.

This is a big assumption, but one that we all had to learn at a
very early age, for instance when we recognized our parents as
sources of food. This assumption is very important, because we couldn't have gone on further without it. Now we can move on to explore the outside world. One of the discoveries you will make about the outside world is that every action creates an equal reaction. This is newtons third law of motion. Another way of saying it is that events do not occur without a cause. Nothing moves without being first pushed or pulled or affected first. This is not opinion, but fact firmly supported by everything so far, and also every single empirical observation that's ever been made.

Another thing you might find in the outside world is something called the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the energy that atoms and molecules have as they interact with each other. There are three major rules that all things must obey regarding thermodynamics. These can be described in very complex terms or very simple terms .Here they are:

1st law says: energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
2nd law says: the entropy of the universe is always increasing.
3nd law says: the average temperature of all matter can never reach zero.

Entropy by the way, is a measure of the unavailability of a systemâ??s energy to do work.

When any physical thing interacts with another, the 1st law of
thermodynamics says energy is never lost and never created. Even when a fire is put out or something explodes.The total energy of the universe remains the same. You can never get more than you start with.

Th second law says entropy is always growing. This can be stated other ways, like the energy available to do work, is always decreasing. Or, some of the energy put into process is lost to friction. This means no perpetual motion machines. All things go from an ordered state to a disordered state, and from complex organization to complete regularity.

It's as if all the energy in the universe were in an hour glass, so that as time passes the energy is used and falls into the bottom of the hourglass, where it becomes less useful, or useless. All of the energy in the universe is becoming unavailable to do work ever again. When it's used up, it's all over. This is the second law of thermodynamics, and it is the most rigorously tested law in all of science.

There are two "exceptions" to the second law though. The first one is life. If the forces behind the second law had their way, our bodies would deteriorate within a short time. But life has a way to overcome this problem. It's as if life is walking up an escalator, and the 2nd law drags you down just as it's stepping up. How does life delay a fundamental law of the universe? It doesn't actually.

You and your environment decay at a certain rate. But since you are alive you can eat part of your environment. As a result that piece of food is decayed very rapidly, and you remain less degraded.

How does life channel the energy found in food into the specific
functions of maintaining it's delicate and intricate structures? A major part of any living cell is it's blueprint, it's DNA. These blueprints are designs for the cellular machinery which is designed so it can acquire energy from food, carry on the functions of life, and duplicate itself over and over again. It works because it makes a path of less resistance making probable what would otherwise be impossible.

The degradation of information bearing systems such as DNA and the 2nd law are related. The link to how the 2nd law applies to energy and information is found in thermodynamic probability, a field pioneered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1896 and confirmed by Max Plank in 1912. Modern statistical thermodynamics is used to clearly show that information is subject to the same degrading force that constantly increases the amount of entropy in our universe.

The second "exception" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only way to make progress up the escalator. Things can only be more organized by intention. Intelligence and the ability to apply force are required to assemble a computer for instance, or a submarine, or a watch.

Some people think that life can increase it's complexity on it's own without intelligent direction.And although no one has ever seen it happen, and even though it would be a violation of the second law, alot of people claim it's a fact regardless.

The third law of thermodynamics really doesn't matter at this point.

we need one more thing now before we can use the first two laws of thermodynamics. it's a consequence of time. It's the possibility for beginnings and endings. When you started this book, you knew that it would end, and your own life will end someday.

In fact, all complexity will "end" eventually. Even the universe will end at some point. If things continue on as they have the entropy in the universe will reach it's maximum level and no energy will be left to do work. The stars will burn out, all life will die, and the average temperature will be very close to absolute zero. The second law is our guarantee of utter and complete demise.

Also, because a thing is degrading toward and end not only implies there was a beginning, it necessitates one. Because the energy available to do work decreases with time, and since the total amount of energy to do work cannot exceed the amount available the furthest one can extrapolate back in time is the point where they were equal. This is the earliest possible date. That is, a beginning. We can also say that the universe needed an original source of motion. We can see that an original source of kinetic energy was required because

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.

Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.

Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.

Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.

The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.

Now to discuss the presence of order and complexity. A very similar argument can be used to show that because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with. Now remember that order can only come from intelligence able to direct force.

Some may say that life can do the job without the intelligence by evolution. But even if this were possible, who would have created the first life form or the low levels of chemical entropy throughout the universe? Our universe must have had an original designer. Something to reduce entropy and increase complexity.

That the entropy can decrease on it's own is quite impossible. As a result it will never happen, and it never has.Unless that is, you believe in miracles.

The fact that the universe exists and that life exists is nothing short of a miracle. A miracle is something that happens even though it's physically impossible. Is that a contradiction? No , here's why. If we know that low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.

Motion and complexity exist, and the universe cannot provide either one. But rather, it's losing complexity and randomizing all motion. Not only is the universe unable to sustain itself, it could never have even begun by itself. Our universe is unable to stand alone, and something else must exist. There is a word for this .

It's called the supernatural.

The very things that necessitate the existence of the supernatural can tell us something about it. If we look back we'll see that something outside of our universe was responsible for decreasing entropy. Something had to have worked in the opposite direction of the second law to establish higher degrees of complexity. Life and large amounts of energy available to do work, could not have spontaneously appeared in our universe without outside help. Something outside of the universe must have been responsible for their presence originally.

Complexity is a state of low entropy and high specific order. In contrast, nature forces all things toward regularity, like the the molecules of a crystal, or towards disorder as seen in molecules of gas. This kind of regularity btw is the opposite of complexity and contains little or no information.

The second thing we know of the supernatural is that something was necessary to get things moving in our universe. The "prime mover" must be there somehow.

With what's been discussed so far we can't really talk about other things like whether there's a realm beyond that one, or whether the place is big or small or whether size or time or dimension even matter.The only thing that can be discussed at this point is the part of the supernatural which gave our universe order and complexity. So what is the nature of that thing? Well for one it exists, and that it never needed to be started, because if not, then the thing which started it is the thing which didn't need to be started. Either way, there's something supernatural which has always existed. we can know that for sure because we know that we exist and that something started us. That thing would be in the same spot we're in that is, if it wasn't inherently eternal.

Something must ultimately be responsible for the condition and existence of everything else. If you don't agree, try imagining another scenario. In order to deviate from the logical path we're on, you would have to imagine that one or more of the laws of the physical universe was not always the way it is now. (contrary to what all modern scientific knowledge is based upon). Or you could imagine that an outside realm could spontaneously generate a decaying universe like ours without intention, being eternal itself. But this scenario is a kind of super universal pantheism which cannot fulfill the requirements of existence that the universe needs. It's needs not just force, but complexity donated as well. This requires an intelligence with the ability to direct force.

Something supernatural must have started our universe and designed systems of high complexity. We know that this is valid because the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in our universe energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the source for energy in moving things must be supernatural.

According to modern science, it turns out that matter and energy are interchangeable : E=mc2 . They're two sides of the same coin. This has implications when we talk about what a prime mover is. It means that energy in the form of motion (kinetic energy) was provided by an outside source. But what about the matter that was being moved? Because matter and energy are so similar we can see the issue has already been addressed. If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.

If a thing provides the energy for the creation and motion of all other things, that thing is called all powerful because it must be the ultimate source for all energy regardless of what form that energy takes. If something provides the energy so that all other things can exist, then it is the foundation of all that exists. It is the foundation of all existence and it is self sustaining therefore it is eternal. If we stopped here we'd be left with a sort of universal pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that the universe is the ultimate self sustaining and eternal power.

But as things stand, it would rather be the realm outside of the universe that is the ultimate power, which is really just a magnified version of pantheism.

complex organization can only come from intelligent design. Left to themselves all things fall apart. Only an intellect can reverse the process through intentional construction. Not one incident of spontaneous generation of a complex organized system has never been seen. for good reason. It's impossible.

Next to point out a common misconception that many people have. The subject is evolution and the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution.

Macro evolution is the process that causes a certain species to gain complexity and become a higher species. This is what is typically meant when referring to the term evolution. This is the process that allows a multicellular organism to to develop new organs for sight or movement, or a dinosaur to develop wings and feathers to become a bird. This process is also what allows for the presence of extremely complex chemical processes in cells which before had only simple ones.

There is a separate and very different process known as micro evolution. Micro evolution is the scientific term for minor changes in living organisms. Micro evolution cannot change one animal into a better one, but it can make some changes that better suit the animal. The process allows for different breeds of dog or horse for example.It also allows for wild animals to adapt to small changes in their environment. It is usually reversible and it's extremely important for the survival of all life on earth.

The difference for these two is in how the animals change. In micro evolution the animals genes are reshuffled so that different genes can be used in the next generation.Here's an example.

Two squirrels who both have a gene for white color (b) and a gene for black color (B) would have children that are a mixture. 25% would get BB and would be black. 50% would get a big B and a little b and would be grey.. 25% would get bb and would be white.

One generation of gray squirrels may find that the trees in the forest are much darker than before. As a result those squirrels who are black (BB) would hide among the tress from predators more easily and be more common than any squirrel with a light colored gene (b). If the trees stay dark for a long time then the gene for light color may even be lost.

Macro evolution is different. It requires that random changes in the genetic code (mutations) result in a new gene never before seen, which has a new function. If the function is good, it will pass it on to it's children. For example a squirrel might find that one of it's children has grown sharp barbs on it back instead of fur. A new gene has arisen from accidental events in the parents reproductive organs. The result is that none of the wolves want to eat the new squirrel. The squirrel has many children and passes on the new trait.

This is how a single cells genetic code would eventually become complex enough to grow a large animal. Of course, it would take many many years for this to happen....

In summary micro evolution uses information already present in the animal to allow small changes in the animal's characteristics while macro evolution depends on new information forming on accident. Of course, an information losing mutation may give an animal a survival advantage over it's peers, but macro evolution depends on not only having a survival advantage, but also an increase in information and complexity.

There's a problem then. Macro evolution depends on blind chance and the laws of the universe, they always become less complex, not more. In addition macro evolution has never been observed. Therefore macro evolution is a fiction.

fiction -
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

Unfortunately micro evolution is often used to try to prove that evolution is a fact. even the term micro evolution is misleading. Two very different ideas.

So why would anyone believe in a fiction? The only reason to hold onto the feasibility of macro evolution is that it's attached to a larger question, which takes us back to the topic before. We are forced to admit that our universe was given high levels of complexity. But what's capable of doing this? It of course. We already know that It is all powerful. we can also say that It is infinitely intelligent.

Why? If it designed and created all things, then it knows the details about all things. This attribute is called omniscience.This includes the future, because even space-time, the fabric within which all matter and energy exists requires an origin. Therefore if time is a created thing then it's creator must exist independent of it. It can see the end of time just as easily as the beginning. It knows all things, past, present, and future. After all that there's really nothing left to know. Therefore we have discovered the existence of a being that is:

1. All powerful
2. Infinitely intelligent
3. all knowing
4 and the creator of all things.

The proper title of such a being is you guessed it : God.

God-
A being conceived as the perfect omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.The principal object of worship in monotheistic religions.
- The American heritage dictionary / second college edition

Now we know that God exists, but there are still some things we don't know.we don't know if God is the only thing supernatural, or if there are other things out there as well. we also don't know what God is beyond what we've gone through. So, who is God?

Which God is God? Is it important that we know who God is? Does God have many names? Which religion, if any are correct? can they all be right? Does God want us to know? Can we really know anything more?

There are many things that we already do know that can help us answer those difficult questions. Most religions claim to know the answers to them all. But if it matters and we know the answers and God allows us to find them then God would have provided the means for finding everything we need to know. What this means is that it is possible for one or more existing religions to be correct.

It also remains possible that none of them are correct and God has chosen to remain anonymous. But if God did want to be known, it is impossible that God might fail. God is omnipotent and omniscient including perfect knowledge of the future.It is impossible that a perfectly powerful and all knowing God would fail to accomplish any goal. Now, where does that leave things?

Back at the beginning, apparently. We'll start with what we know about God already and use deductive reasoning. we will compare our discoveries with what all of the religions teach. This will go faster than you think.If nothing else the possibilities can at least be narrowed down. Since we've discovered that there is an all powerful God, and since several religions teach differently, we can already make an important observation. All of the religions can not be valid. Now to analyze the religions by category.

The most powerful category is this one : atheism vs. theism. Since we know God exists this is very easy to categorize. All world views that are atheistic are false.

Darwinism
humanism
naturalism
Marxism
materialism
dialectic materialism
evolutionary systems

These cannot tell us anything about who God is. The public schools should be informed of this.All philosophies that deny the existence of God are incorrect. Now to the next category : pantheism vs. supernaturalism. If you'll look back you'll remember that pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is God, that it has always existed and is responsible for creating life. But remember our universe is unable to create anything but degradation. It is inadequate, it can't even sustain itself, let alone create life.

Therefore all religions that are pantheistic are false religions:

Buddhism
Hinduism
Astrology
New age philosophies
Unity religions

This has dealt with alot of religions, and has definitely given you something to think about for sure. But remember our results are based on logic and firmly grounds proofs. To deny the results are true would be to deny one or more of those assumptions. If you think one of these is unreasonable, by all means try to come up with an alternative and work through the consequences yourself. But before you do, remember that pantheism can revealed to be false by the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is the most rigorously tested law in all of science. The only assumptions you could deny to save pantheism would be the ones before the 2nd law:

- All events are caused
- possibility for beginnings and endings
- the outside world exists
- your thoughts require the passage of time
- you exist
- thinkers exist
- you are thinking

I wouldn't feel good about getting rid of any of those. But some people do. For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.

The next category to analyze is polytheism vs. monotheism .Polytheism is the belief that there are many distinct Gods. Monotheism is the belief there is one all powerful God. Polytheism denies the existence of an all powerful God, although there is often a chief God like Zeus to the ancient Greeks or Vishnu in the Hindu pantheon. These Gods are the most powerful but are not all powerful. So which one is more likely?

Based on the recent discoveries, there can only be one God. Polytheistic religions have Gods that are very powerful but are inadequate nonetheless. All of the characteristics that we attributed to God (all powerful, creative, all knowing, eternal, prime mover) are inseparable. This is because it's impossible for anything to self exist unless it's eternal. The creator existed before anything else, therefore it is eternal. Also the thing which creates all other things, is by definition, all powerful. So those three traits are inseparable. As far as being all knowing goes, we already know that the creator is the designer, and so must have intimate knowledge of all things. Therefore God must be one.

There are a great many polytheistic religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, animistic religions, tribal religions etc. You may have notice that most of them are pantheistic also. That takes care most of the religions and world views that exist. Not taken be spoken arrogantly, but reasonably based upon what has been shown so far. We could go on, but the categories would get quite complex.It suffices to say that any religion which denies what is known about God or our universe must be false.

Here's an idea. Here's a list of all of the known religions and a reference giving description of all of them.

List of world's religions:

Major philosophical systems (referred to as not religious or non spiritual belief systems)

Naturalism
materialism
marxism/ dialectic materialism
atheism
humanism/secular humanism
cosmic humanism (aka. new age spirituality)
evolutionary theory / darwinian and neo- darwinian

"World" Religions

Baha'i faith
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Shinto
sikhism
Taoism

Neo-Pagan religious faiths

Asatru ( Norse paganism)
Druidism
Goddess worship
Wicca
Witchcraft

Small non-christian religions

caodaism
Druidism
Druse
Eckankar
Gnosticism (also, Christian Gnosticism)
(gypsies) rom, roma, romani, Rroma
Hare krishna - iskon
lukumi
macumba
mowahhidoon
native spirituality
new age spirituality
osho (followers of rajneesh)
santeria
satanism
scientology
thelema
unitarian-universalism
vodon (voodoo)
zoroastrianism

Other ethical groups and spiritual paths

Agnosticism
unitarian-universalism
teachings of dadaji

Sects, denominations, and cults not listed

Most of this was obtained from Ontario consultants on religious tolerance (OCRT).

This is a good time to discuss agnosticism. You may have heard of it before. Agnosticism is a claim to ignorance. It is the belief that it is impossible to know if God exists let alone any details about his personality. Some people simply use the term to mean "I don't know but maybe someday I'll find out". For the purposes of this article, agnosticism will be divided this way:

Agnosticism type A - It is impossible to know if God exists.
Agnosticism type B - it is impossible to know any details about God (it is impossible to know any details about God beside his omnipotence, omniscience and eternal nature.These are the qualities that define God with a capital G.)

But since we have already determined that God does exist, agnosticism type A can be ruled out. Leaving us with one question..

Are any of the remaining religions correct? Or must we admit ignorance at this point? Logically, one thing can be said. Agnosticism B can be proven false, if any of the remaining religions can be proven true. The first question to ask is, what religions are left? You can probably think of at least one. They will all be supernatural and monotheistic. They are:

1. Judaism
2. Islam
3. Christianity

Perhaps this is a good time for you to reflect on what's been discovered so far. We are left with four possibilities. Either God is unknowable, or He is as Judaism describes Him, or He is as Islam decibels Him, or He is as Christianity describes Him.

First, let's take a look at each one in chronological order. A library or the internet used with discernment is a good way to study about religions btw.

Judaism, though not in it's modern form, has been around the longest. According to Judaism's historical books written by men including a man named Moses and a few prophets, God created the universe and all the things in it including people. Then the first two people turned away from God by committing the first sin. This event is called the fall . They fell from perfection and Good to imperfection and bad. At this point death and decay entered the world. But God promised he would one day send a messiah. This messiah would allow people to escape judgment and spiritual death. According to Judaism mankind is made of body and spirit. When the body dies, the spirit is left. It goes to either hell or heaven (paradise).The remainder of the historical accounts of Judaism is very interesting and is well worth reading. But for the purpose of this article, we already have what's needed to know.

Although there is a long history of how God interacted with the Jewish people, the messiah has never come according to modern orthadox Judaism, and they are waiting for him still, almost 3,500 years later. This brings us to the next religion chronologically.

Christianity is another supernatural monotheistic religion. And it just so happens to be dependant upon Judaism. Christians believe that the messiah has already come. His name was Jesus, or more accurately in greek Iesous (ee-ay-sooce) or in Hebrew, Jehoshua. meaning God-saved. There's a difference between the two religions however. Modern Judaism means to claim the messiah only for themselves. Christianity claims the messiah came for everyone! According to Christianity, Jesus did conquer death just as God had promised he would. He did this in a way no one expected him to; he died and came back to life. And in doing this he took upon himself the penalties for all crimes ever committed against God by mankind. But another interesting part is that each person has to be included in this process of redemption, or else pay the penalties for their crimes all by themselves. So Christianity claims to complete the story that Judaism began by means of a messiah.

In 600 ad. a man named Muhammed came along, and just like Christianity he had a few adjustments to make in the previous monotheistic religions. In the city of mecca, he purportedly began receiving messages from God, who he called Allah in 610 ad. They came to him in small pieces over the next 22 years during which he moved to Medina with his followers. He had some trouble getting things started, but soon the religion grew to be very large. The beliefs of Islam center around the collection of writings given to Mohammed. They call it the quran or Koran which means "the recitation". And many muslims do recite it regularly. But one thing that makes Islam different is that Mohammed's revelation takes a very different perspective but is loosely analogous to the previous two religions. According to the Koran, Allah created all things in six days. First Allah created other beings. Then he formed man from clay, a sperm drop and a clot of blood. Then God gave man mental capabilities and breathed into him some of his special attributes. Then Allah told the other beings to submit to man. But the other beings refused and from that point on were determined to destroy mankind. This is the one we call Satan. According to the koran, a messiah was never promised or needed. Because there was never a fall from perfection. Perfection includes pain and suffering, but in the future it will end. Things were created as they still are. Pain and suffering were created by Allah for the purpose of spiritual purification. That includes all pain and suffering in this life and the next. Since the beginning, Allah sent prophets to guide mankind away from evil behavior so they wouldn't have to go to hell for a very long time after they die. These were the same prophets who wrote the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. But the koran reports that these scriptures have tremendous errors in them. This is why the Torah and Koran do not agree on most issues.

In fact, it is the very intent of the Koran to correct these errors. It's not a bad idea to study it yourself with discernment. There, all three described in simple terms. You might have thought that comparing the validity of these three would be time consuming and difficult, or that it would be too hard to answer all of the questions that need to be answered. But there is a simpler way.

There is one question whose answer can distinguish between these religions efficiently. Since logic is best kept simple and efficient as possible, this is the best question we can ask. This is a question of tremendous importance. Here's why. First, Christianity insists that Jesus Christ is the messiah, that is the very son of God; God in the flesh. Second, Islam insist that Jesus is the prophet of Allah, no more no less. Third, modern Judaism claims that he was just a man: crazy, eccentric, or maybe just unlucky, but just a man nonetheless.

He must have been one of these three things. Now to find out the answer. If he was just a man, we should find that no special, supernatural or divine events ever occurred near, by or through him. And if he was a prophet of Allah, then we should find that there were some supernatural events surrounding him, like the performing of miracles or the fulfillment of his prophecy. And if he was the messiah, the son of God, the most important person to ever walk the earth then we'd expect there to be quite a bit of evidence to verify that this is true. Or it would be easy to prove otherwise. Naturally, if you want to know if someone is the messiah you must look to the source of the concept. The Pentateuch and the subsequent writings of the Hebrew Prophets can also be found in the first half of the Christian Bible. You may need a copy of one or the other to follow along. You can also find a bible study in many versions online, one of them is at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions and 35 languages. (http://www.biblegateway.com) . We need to see if Jesus fits the descriptions. Not just some of them, but ALL of them must be met. In addition, the fulfillment of these criteria should be unambiguous and reflect supernatural, unique and even divine verification. Otherwise, the scriptures themselves should be held to suspicion as Islam claims.

One of the first thing we can look into is the matter of timing. Do the Hebrew scriptures predict when the messiah should appear? Yes, in fact they do. In one of the most specific prophecies ever written, the prophet Daniel gives the exact date that the messiah should appear (Daniel 9:24-25). Unfortunately, the knowledge of historical calendars and dating systems required to translate that date is probably beyond most people. But others have translated the information for us.

483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 BC. = ad 30-33.

Daniel gives us a precise date that the messiah would come. While Daniel did refer to an exact date, historians do not have enough information to determine exactly what that date is. As a result, a three year range is given as a date. As the verses in Daniels book says,

"from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until messiah the Prince there will be 7 sevens and 62 sevens..." "...then after the 62 sevens the messiah will be cut off...."

Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.

There is an interesting piece of historical fact to support the veracity of his testimony. One of the most powerful and compelling of all fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, the Seventy Weeks of Daniel is one with which all Christians should be familiar. It is eye opening for Gentiles and Jews alike.

1. The book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century before Christ. Skeptics who deny authentic authorship by Daniel still have to admit that the book appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) by the second century before Christ. Even this later date makes this a valid and powerful prophecy.

2. Read Daniel 9:24-26. The following terms are crucial to understanding the prophecy: "Anointed one" is the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for (Messiah is Hebrew for Anointed One), "Cut off" always refers to killed in the O.T., and "Weeks", or "Sevens" (depending upon translation) is the Hebrew word Heptad. Heptad is used to mean either a period of seven days or a period of seven years (Comparable to our use of "Decade" for ten years). This passage is stating that 69 times seven years after the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem the Messiah would be killed for his people.

3. The Hebrew calendar consisted (and still consists) of 12 months of 30 days each, resulting in a 360 day year. The conversion from that calendar to ours is as follows:

a. 69 X 7 = 483 Hebrew years
b. 483 X 360 = 173,880 Days
c. 173,880 / 365 (Days in our calendar year) =476 Years in our calendar after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem the Messiah will be cut off.

4. In Nehemiah 2:1 we read that in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes the decree was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (vv 2-9). King Artaxerxes is a historical figure whose reign secular historians say began in 464 B.C. 20 years from that date would be around 445 B.C. when the decree is issued. Traveling forward in time 476 years brings one to 33 A.D. (Remember that there is no year 0. The year after 1 B.C. is 1 A.D.).

5. There is general agreement among historians, whatever their opinion of Jesus, that 33 A.D. is the year that he was crucified. That makes this an amazingly accurate, incredibly specific fulfilled prophecy. So 30-33 BC is the same time period that Jesus taught in Israel. At the end of this period of time, many Jews in Jerusalem hailed Jesus as the messiah on his entry into Jerusalem. By the end of that week, Jesus was executed. As the prophecy said, " after the 62 sevens the messiah will be cut off and have nothing". This is an amazing fulfillment of prophecy, which was made almost 500 years earlier. But let's not stop there. Let's look at all the prophecies. Following will be a nice list of prophecies that pertain to the messiah.
Messianic Prophecy Chart

1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)

â?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 2:1â??7, Galatians 4:4)

2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)

3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)

4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)

5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)

â?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32â??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)

6. Messiah to be crucified (Psalm 22, 69:21)
7. Messiah will be pierced (Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16)
8. Messiah will be killed (Isaiah 50:6, Daniel 9:26)

â?? Jesus was crucified, pierced, and executed (Matthew 27:34â??50, John 19:28â??30, John 19:34, 37, Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30)
â?? Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 when he was crucified "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

9. Messiah to be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)

(Note: The Hebrew word "almah" for 'virgin' has sometimes been translated simply as 'young woman'. 'Virgin' is a better translation because:

-Nowhere in the Scriptures is "almah" used of a non-virgin

-The author clearly intends the event to be a significant sign; a young woman having a baby would not be significant )

â?? Jesus was born of Mary who was, at that time, a virgin
(Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 1:26â??35). Mary later bore other children by her husband Joseph (Matthew 12:46â??50).

10. Messiah will be gentle, mild and meek (Isaiah 42:2â??3, 53:7)

â?? Jesus did not come to fight or incite the people to war. He never raised His hand against another except to drive the money changers from the temple (Matthew 12:15â??20, 26:62â??63, 27:11â??14)

11. Messiah will not exclude the Gentiles in his mission (Isaiah 42:1, 49:1â??8)

â?? Jesus accepted the repentance of many Gentiles and preached that gentiles will be included in God's plan for the salvation (Matthew 12:21)

12. The message the Messiah will bring (as written in Isaiah) matches the message Jesus brought (Isaiah 52:13 â?? 53:12)

â?? All four Gospels (The Messiah brings Salvation through his suffering)

13. The Messiah will perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5â??6)

â?? The Gospels are full of Jesus' miracles; here are a couple of passages which summarize this (John 11:47, Matthew 11:3â??6)

14. Messiah to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

â?? Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4â??6)

15. Messiah will enter the temple with authority as the messenger of God (Malachi 3:1)

â?? Jesus taught in the temple and synagogues as one having authority, not as one who simply reads the scriptures and preaches from them (Luke 4:15â??21, Matthew 21:12, 7:28â??29)

16. Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)

â?? Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1â??10)

17. Messiah will be forsaken by his disciples (Zechariah 13:7)

â?? Jesus' disciples all deserted him at the time of his arrest and crucifixion (Matthew 26:31, 56, 75)

18. They would cast lots for his clothing rather than divide it among them (Psalm 22:18)

â?? The clothes of the one to be executed became spoil to the executioners (Matthew 27:35, John 19:24)

19. Although he was to die as a criminal his grave would be that of a rich man (Isaiah 53:9)

â?? Jesus was buried in the tomb that a rich man had purchased for the time of his own death; instead, he donated it to Jesus (Matthew 27:57â??60)

20. The Messiah would be bought with 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)

â?? Judas Iscariot was paid this amount to betray Jesus, that is, to find a time when He was alone and not protected by multitudes of followers so that He could be seized easily (Matthew 26:15)

21. Messiah to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)

â?? Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot betrayed Jesus (John 13:18â??30; 18:1â??9)

22. Messiah to be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7, Proverbs 30:4)

â?? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and was later announced to be God's son at the time of His baptism (Luke 1:32, Matthew 3:17)

23. Messiah to be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10)

â?? Matthew 28:1â??20, Acts 13:35â??37

24. Messiah will ascend into heaven (Psalm 68:18, [Ephesians 4:8])

â?? Luke 24:51, Acts 1:6â??11

25. Messiah will be both God and Man (Jeremiah 23:5â??6).

In these verses, the Messiah is described as both descended from King David and as YHWH ( Jehovah ), sometimes translated 'The LORD'. YHWH was the Hebrew name for God which was regarded as too sacred to pronounce. I regard it sacred too, but for educational purposes I'm pointing it out.

â?? (l John 1:1â??14)

There you go. You may have noticed that all of the fulfillments from that list are from the New Testament. Is this a valid source of dependable historical information? Most of these reference come from four books collectively called "the Gospels" . Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are all accounts of Jesus' life. And if you were to look into how they were written and in what environment you would find that they are even more dependable and valid than anything else we know about history.

Jesus was a public figure. Among the Jewish people in Israel at that time, there probably wasn't a single person who had not heard of Jesus. And a great many of them had actually heard his teaching in person, not to mention the many incredible miracles he performed which were not denied even by the pharisees who were against him.

The 4 accounts of Jesus' life that we have today were written by four distinguished gentlemen named Mathew Levi, John Mark, Dr. Luke and John the son of Zebedee (who was very young at the time). If they had lied about the facts or made any changes in their accounts, everyone would have known about it. There were just too many eyewitnesses to who Jesus really was.

And even more, the book that Dr. Luke wrote is an extremely well researched piece of historical workmanship. He interviewed 100s of eyewitnesses and spent time putting all of their accounts together. So we can know with a high degree of certainty that the gospels are dependable and accurate. Which means that Jesus fulfilled the requirements for messiah perfectly. All that's needed now is divine verification. That is, evidence that he was more than just a prophet. This isn't that hard, since hundreds and hundreds of people saw Jesus after he was crucified. Not surprisingly, these people were the first Christians since they had seen with their own eyes Jesus risen from the dead. Also, even before Jesus was raised from the dead, he raised another man from the dead also (John 11), and many more people were there to verify that miracle also.

Unfortunately for Islam, the Koran says that noone can ever come back from the dead. And since we have very strong evidence that indeed took place, the koran is in error at this point. Not to mention the things we've already gone over, like the fact that the messiah which was foretold to come actually came right on time. Yet the Koran says that there is no messiah and we never needed one. That's two big errors.

And third, the Koran claims that the gospels are also holy scriptures from Allah! This is hard to believe, since the main topic of all 4 gospels is Jesus Christ the messiah, the one and only son of God. Yet the Koran not only denies that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but even that he died on a tree.

It's hard to imagine a slip of the pen leading to such a cohesive doctrine. In fact, as has been shown, the entire bible ( Pentateuch, the prophets, and new testament) has Jesus the messiah as it's central theme throughout.. Isn't it suspicious that a book that took 2,000 years to write by 40+ different people from different times and cultures could be so central in it's theme? And no book has been challenged as much as the bible since it's completion.

It turns out a similar method as shown above is the best way to rule out cults and sects as well that claim to be an extension of Christianity via some subsequent revelation from God. Any belief which claims Jesus as one of their "holy men" yet contradicts who he was or what he said is in error and should be held with suspicion.

From what's been discovered so far, it's apparent that modern Judaism started out with the right idea, but took a wrong turn. That leaves agnosticism type B incorrect because Christianity is proven correct. Christianity not only fits with what we know about God, but it is abundantly proved by historical, prophetic, and miraculous events. And it is completely unique in this respect. No other religion is verified in such a powerful way.

Few things are as well documented as Jesus' life and deeds. And no other religion has such an amazing 100% accuracy rate for it's prophecies.. Now that we know that the bible can be trusted, we can look at what it reveals about the meaning of life. The bible is exactly what it claims to be, a message from God to mankind. It explains where we came from, why we're here and where we're going. So what does it say about why we're here? What is the meaning of life? It should be obvious by now.

The meaning of life = GOD

Jesus said in John 14:6, " I am the way, the truth, and the life, and noone comes to the Father but by me". The bible is clear on several important issues. Everyone is born with a sinful, selfish nature, as descendants from Adam the first man. All sin and evil are crimes committed against God himself. God demands justice, and he will not allow evil in his presence. But God has made a way for justice to be met, our crimes to be accounted for, and for our redemption.

This redemption is made through Christ Jesus, who being sinless and both God and man, is able to take the punishment upon himself, and offer himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Not only this but he was raised up from death as a new creature. Those who wish to be saved must turn away from sin and acknowledge God's righteousness, forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ, and then they will be received as children of God, receiving his grace and transformed with Christ Jesus from death to life and perfection, just as he was risen from death to glorification.

That's why I typed all this, to convince you to become a Christian. I made it plain and obvious from the beginning, and I hope I convinced you. If not, I invite you argue with me or talk about it, or even read and study on your own. I hope that you got the message, and hope the best for you. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[Iambreathingin]

I find that the idea of the bible saying that everyone is born sinful and selfish is just one of the many many reasons I am not a christian. Science does not deny the bible, but those with religious stature fear science as a means of gaining information they cannot control. Spirituality is a wonderful thing, as religion can also be, but it is the organsied nature of it that's the downfall.

I liked alot of the post until you told me that you were trying to convert me. By all means share your belif, but don't try to change mine. Accept that earth IS diversity, and that without that diversity we lose balance.

I'd like to add that quotes from the bible are not evidence. Every sunday when I am woken up by religious people, they answer my questions with bible quotes, and nothing more. They don't encourge freedom of thought and expression, or the importance to find yourself during your short life, but instead seek to teach you the way to read a book. A book written by MEN, telling other MEN how to make the world a good place.

You don't need promise of immortality to make you want to be a "good" person, do you?

[Iambreathingin]

You feel the need to make a post telling others that what they believe is wrong, trying to convert them.

Buddhist teachings will generally adopt a laid back attitude, generally accepting that everyones journey is differnt and all are entitled to their own opinions.

I'm amused when, after stating early on that all we are sure of is our own concious thought, you then go on to "disprove" other faiths with "facts" and references. You brand others incorrect, with very weak proof.

"Our universe can't sustain itself, let alone create life. Therefore all religions that are pantheistic are false religions"

Perhaps the most vauge and insulting comment you made.

[natureisawesome]

Science does not deny the bible, but those with religious stature fear science as a means of gaining information they cannot control.

Perhaps that's true in the sense that they don't want the information to fall into the hands of people that will abuse that information, but I can honestly tell you that no honest Christian would ever fear a release of scientific information that is honest, even if it seems to contradict thier religion.

Modern empirical science was sprung from Christians as a result of a release of ideas and freedom through the reformation. When Science was hijacked by evolutionists in the early 20th century Christians never tried to shut science down. And even today there are times when new data is discovered that may temporarily seem to support evolution. But I can personally tell you there's no reason to fear because like you said science does not deny the bible.

People need to stop using galileo as an excuse and get educated and realize that The Roman Catholic Church is not established by God, but was an invention of men. Of course evil people will hijack religion. If nothing else, because it's so powerful. But the truth I have found is the most harmful people are people who are deceived more than are intentionally deceivers.


I liked alot of the post until you told me that you were trying to convert me. By all means share your belif, but don't try to change mine. Accept that earth IS diversity, and that without that diversity we lose balance.

What do you expect? I'm a christian and I want everyone to be saved. Recognise my good will. I was honest from the beginning and that desire to save others isn't going to just go away. I was trying to be open and honest. There's plenty of room for discussion, I'm not preaching at you from a pulpit.


I'd like to add that quotes from the bible are not evidence.

Not sure what you're referring to. And yes quotes from the bible can be used as evidence when presented in the right way.



You don't need promise of immortality to make you want to be a "good" person, do you?

Without God there is no morality. And I think if people really wanted to be good they would love God and recieve him , because only God is good.

Like I said, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I hope at least it gave you something to think about.

[natureisawesome]

You feel the need to make a post telling others that what they believe is wrong, trying to convert them.

yes.


I'm amused when, after stating early on that all we are sure of is our own concious thought, you then go on to "disprove" other faiths with "facts" and references. You brand others incorrect, with very weak proof.

hardly


Perhaps the most vauge and insulting comment you made.

That's only one sentence. There were streams of deductive reasoning behind that statement.

Please don't be bitter. What is it that you disagree with or have objections to, and let's talk about it.

[Iambreathingin]

I don't need a book to tell me how to decrease suffering. I don't need written rules to illustrate the differnce pain and joy.

Humans who have had little or no contact with the bible are perfectly capable of making morally just decsions and being aware of them. Even a certain type on monkey (Apologies I forget the name) Has shown that they can regonise others pain and respond by comforting them.

So no, I don't agree that without God there is no moralitly. All we need to do is recognise suffering, and the ability to do so is built into us geneticly.

I find it abit ignorant to say that good will doesn't exist outside of christian society.

[natureisawesome]

I don't need a book to tell me how to decrease suffering. I don't need written rules to illustrate the differnce pain and joy.

Humans who have had little or no contact with the bible are perfectly capable of making morally just decsions and being aware of them. Even a certain type on monkey (Apologies I forget the name) Has shown that they can regonise others pain and respond by comforting them.

So no, I don't agree that without God there is no moralitly. All we need to do is recognise suffering, and the ability to do so is built into us geneticly.

I find it abit ignorant to say that good will doesn't exist outside of christian society.

When you talk about what is right or wrong, there has to be a standard . Good and evil are recognised as something that all people are accountable to recognise as a spiritual truth, but without God saying anything is right or wrong morality is meaningless, and any personal conviction to help someone suffering for example without a standard of morality is meaningless. You feeling like helping someone because they're down trodden doesn't prove it's right if there is no God, even if a whole planet full of people feels the same way, it still is only feelings.

Our deep recognition of love as a higher standard contrastingly is recognition of God's spiritual nature, which we cannot see. We don't see any proof that being kind is right in the natural universe. It's bound up within our hearts, and we receive it despite it's being absent in the physical world, being it's beyong this world.

[Iambreathingin]

My point remains in tact. You don't need the christian God of the bible to acheive any of those things. You argue that people do good things wihtout god in their lives, and that those good things are then meaningless? Surely the same spiritual conviction will belongto hundreds of beliefs all over the world.

I didnt' say that helping people proved there was no God, I said it didn't prove there was one.


It's difficult to reply to such al arge post on a forum really. If you'd like to email me and arrange a time where we couuld come online and have a chat I'd be happy to do so.

[email protected] is my addy, so go nuts. ;)

[jamstigator]

That was some of the worst logic ever. God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system? Who is to say that the Big Bang didn't happen because the previous iteration of the universe collapsed, then exploded, and that this has been going on forever, like the beating of a heart? That wouldn't require a God at all, just time and matter. It's human to assume there must be a beginning and an end to everything, but just because it's human to assume that doesn't mean it's true.

As for life, that too is explainable, without an omnipotent being. Let's say there is an X percent chance that the molecules necessary to form a simple bacterium will randomly hook up. X > 0, but could be a very, very, very small number. However small that number may be, if anything *can* happen, then given time, it *will* happen, no question about it. Once you have low-level life replicating, then evolution kicks in, survival of the fittest, best adaptability to environment, increased complexity, and so on. This doesn't require God either.

I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.

[natureisawesome]

That was some of the worst logic ever. God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system?

Can you please tell me where it says that because I typed that all up myself and I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Those attributes wern't shown to be proven valid simply by the universes exisistence but by natural laws that point towards a creator. The second law of thermodynamics was shown amoung other thing, that order nad igh levels of complexity can only come fgrom an intelligence able to direct force. There was a lot more to it then that. That post took a long time to type, and you declared it to be summarized by " God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system." Please recompose your objection, and I will answer it formally.


Who is to say that the Big Bang didn't happen because the previous iteration of the universe collapsed, then exploded, and that this has been going on forever, like the beating of a heart?

Because the 2nd law says it can't. from If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp) :

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is â??openâ??. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass. Some recent evidence for an â??openâ?? universe comes from the number of light-bending â??gravitational lensesâ?? in the sky. Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universeâ??s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a â??big crunchâ??. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable â??inflationaryâ?? version of the â??big bangâ?? theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapseâ??a â??flatâ?? universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical â??big crunchâ??. As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, â??There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.â?? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thatâ??s the end.


That wouldn't require a God at all, just time and matter.

wrong, even that would require a creator to begin the universe with low levels of entropy in the universe to begin with.


Let's say there is an X percent chance that the molecules necessary to form a simple bacterium will randomly hook up. X > 0, but could be a very, very, very small number. However small that number may be, if anything *can* happen, then given time, it *will* happen, no question about it.

In the world of faith in evolution time is the beloved God. With enough time, anything can happen, despite it's imporobability or incompatability with human experience.

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional â??simpleâ?? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would â??onlyâ?? amount to 10160 electrons.

These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, british mathmetician and astronomer has said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubikâ??s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same timeâ??and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world â??simpleâ?? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes.

An evolutionist might argue that the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. But In the analogy cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning.

The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consistâ??unlike an ice crystal where the structure results from the properties of the water molecule. The order in living things parallels that in printed books where the information is not contained in the ink, or even in the letters, but in the complex arrangement of letters which make up words, words which make up sentences, sentences which make up paragraphs, paragraphs which make up chapters and chapters which make up books. These components of written language respectively parallel the nucleic acid bases, codons, genes, operons, chromosomes and genomes which make up the genetic programs of living cells.

The result of the lottery draw is clearly the result of a random selectionâ??unless family members of the lottery supervisor consistently win! Then we would conclude that the draw has not been randomâ??it is not the result of a random process, but the result of an intelligent agent.

United States taxpayers are spending millions of dollars yearly in funding the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process, but if there is a pattern such as â??dah-dah-dah-dit-dit-dit-dah-dah-dahâ??, it will be hailed as evidence for an intelligent, although invisible, source.

If such evidence indicate an intelligent source then surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being, shouts Creation by a Creator! The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator. But aside from all this, the second law of thermodynamics just won't allow evolution to take place. Period. I guess you didn't get that.



Once you have low-level life replicating, then evolution kicks in, survival of the fittest, best adaptability to environment, increased complexity, and so on. This doesn't require God either.

I'd love for you to give me a simple explanation of how this can happen, when the laws of the universe and all probability show it can't. Mutations don't make things better. They make things worse. But in the world of evolution, mutations are the name of the game. Evolutionists believe time and chance can defy all probability and the natural laws of the universe. Evolutionsts believe that disorder can produce order . They don't even beleive the word impossible can even apply when it comes to evolution, but they would never consider the possibility of a creator who made all things.


I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.

Actually I have show ample proof that the universe must have required an intelligent designer ie, God. But as far as proving it, no I can't do that, and noone can prove evolution the way you mean either. I did exactly what I said I would do. I showed a logical and reasonable path held firm with scientific proofs that lead to faith in a creator. The evidence shows that a creator is necesary, but requires a person to have faith in something not seen. That's where the evidence leads and so you have to follow upon that path.

[Iambreathingin]

There is still 0 proof or even evidence to suggest one concious being that created the universe. When every counter (such as fossils) is responded to with "The devil did it to confuse me" then I really question how arguing with somone so convited to their cause could be worth it.

While I read what you write with an open mind, my myself believeing in somthing greater than what we known, you seem to be already set in your beliefs and this is the condition belonging to all those devoted to their faith. Your belief is so strong that your mind will not have you believe otherwise, the idea of testing your own faith by actually considering alternatives would seem to put you off on some unconcious level.

the more you talk the less you listen and unless you'd like to hold a real time conversation with me I want no further part in this thread.

I'll leave you with this thought.

You have no more proof than we do. You do however have conviction to your belief, where as I for example am open to anything my logic approves of. As Buddha taught, believe nothing that does not agree with your own sense of logic, even if it is I who says it. (or somthing to that effect)

[Delta9 UK]

natureisawesome - I don't think you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its application to evolution.

The 2nd law :
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body"

You are taking this to mean "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease"

Order from disorder is common - take a Snowflake or the helical structure of DNA. Life = Order from disorder - its all around you ;) If these violate the 2nd law, well, they do it a LOT.

Anyway we are NOT talking about a closed system here - we have a Sun which is throwing out all the energy needed to support and sustain life on this planet. You seem to have neglected that bit...

[BlueDevil]

Just read the thread and Jamstigator's


I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.

..sums it up rather well IMO.

[LegalizeTheGreen]

just to clear things up, good and evil are easy to define, and don't require "God". Good is everything that coencides with the normal actions and thoughts of mankind, where evil is anything that deviates from the normal path. ie, the average person doesn't kill people, therefore someone that murders is "evil". It is pretty simple. In the past, where there was much more bloodshed, David murdering Goliath was interpreted as Good simply because it coeicided with the normality of the time (basicly a duel to the death, which wasn't an uncommon occurance). They used to stone people back in the day, and the bible even preached it, and it was good because it was the normal, acepted punishment, where nowdays, stoning is not generally practiced because for the majority of the world, it is no longer the norm, and would be considered evil now.

also, scientists don't go trying to convert christians, so maybe christians should leave science alone and stick to faith, like the bible says you should(Thou shalt not test the Lord your God).

[jamstigator]

"If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process..."

Actually, that's not true. Encrypted data is basically indistinguishable from random noise. (There are some security software packages that take advantage of this to hide an encrypted volume within another encrypted volume, for example, so if tortured you can give up the passphrase for the outer encrypted layer, while denying the very existence of an inner encrypted layer.)

There is a theory that this is why we haven't yet detected signals from other intelligences; we're seeing the signals just fine, but because they're encrypted we don't know that's what they are. Of course, this leads to the question: why would they encrypt their signals? And one scary answer is: something out there is hunting down and eradicating intelligent civilizations when it detects them, leaving behind only those civilizations that *do* encrypt their data/signals.

BTW, the second law of thermodynamics argument didn't convince me. The amount of matter+energy in the universe will (so far as we know) never either go down nor go up. It may change form (solids to plasma, matter to energy, energy to matter, whatever), but that's it. If that's so, if the amount of 'stuff' in the universe cannot be altered, then if a contraction/expansion cycle could happen once, it could happen infinitely. I concede your point that apparently the universe will not contract (this time), at least so far as we can tell, but there's a lot of unanswered questions related to dark matter that need to be answered before anyone can say for sure. We haven't even *found* dark matter yet, despite the fact that it comprises the bulk of the universe in which we exist.

Now, here's a snippet from Wiki:

"The smallest DNA bacteriophage is the Phi-X174 phage, thought to be larger than Hepatitis B, at about 4 kb. [1]

Nanobes are thought by some to be the smallest known organism, about ten times smaller than the smallest known bacteria. Nanobes, tiny filamental structures first found in some rocks and sediments, were first described in 1996 by Philipa Uwins of the University of Queensland. The smallest are 20 nm long. Some researchers believe them to be merely crystal growths, but a purported find of DNA in nanobe samples may prove otherwise. They are similar to the life-like structures found in ALH84001, the famous Mars meteorite from the Antarctic."

So, this means that the DNA data in a nanobe would be around 400 bytes. Not millions of pages, not 10^50000 or anything of the sort. While the random creation of the molecules necessary to form a bacteria (4000 bytes or so) would be unlikely, 400 bytes, given billions of years, and probably quadrillions of planets, is not at all implausible. And once you have even this crude form of life, the inevitable path to increased complexity has begun. This post has more data in it than a nanobe.

[natureisawesome]

delta9 uk said:


natureisawesome - I don't think you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its application to evolution.

The 2nd law :
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body"

You are taking this to mean "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease"

Order from disorder is common - take a Snowflake or the helical structure of DNA. Life = Order from disorder - its all around you ;) If these violate the 2nd law, well, they do it a LOT.

Anyway we are NOT talking about a closed system here - we have a Sun which is throwing out all the energy needed to support and sustain life on this planet. You seem to have neglected that bit...


I do understand what the second law of thermodynamics means. Not only can the entropy of a closed system not decrease, the entropy of an open system can't decrease either!

from Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp) :

Question 1: Open Systems
â??Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

â??This does seem to be a valid pointâ??do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?â??

Answer 1:
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble wonâ??t organize itself

It also depends on the type of system:

An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running downâ?? see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesnâ??t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

â?¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. â?¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun wonâ??t make you more complexâ??the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sunâ??s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

Itâ??s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

Question 2: What about crystals?
To quote one anti-creationist, Boyce Rensberger:

If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.2

Answer 2:
Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only â??ABâ??, and â??print 6 timesâ??.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions â??more of the sameâ?? x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signalâ??specified complexityâ??e.g. â??I love youâ??, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesnâ??t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and itâ??s doubtful whether it could survive.

One of the classic examples of such â??order out of chaosâ?? is the appearance of hexagonal patterns on the surface of certain oils as they are being heated. The minute the heating stops, this pattern vanishes once again into a sea of molecular disorder.

These patterns, like the swirls of a hurricane, are not only fleetingly short-lived, but are simple, repetitive structures which require negligible information to describe them. The information they do contain is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, not requiring any extra â??programming.â??

[natureisawesome]

legalize the green,

I feel no need to respond to your logic. I wil say though that I really really believe in God's word and I believe that people are going to hell. Now I love and care about mankind and so I'll do what I can to save asy many as possible. If this wasn't my attitude wouldn't I be a evil person?

I care about you, and I hope the best for you.

[snowblind]

Quote
Not sure what you're referring to. And yes quotes from the bible can be used as evidence when presented in the right way.


like when you put spin on them

like....

'i did smoke marjauna, but i didnt inhale "

[natureisawesome]

Jamstigator said:


Encrypted data is basically indistinguishable from random noise

It can be simply pointed out that all information, even encrypted data is consistently patterned. Random noise can have a short lived pattern but it is usually not.


There is a theory that this is why we haven't yet detected signals from other intelligences; we're seeing the signals just fine, but because they're encrypted we don't know that's what they are. Of course, this leads to the question: why would they encrypt their signals? And one scary answer is: something out there is hunting down and eradicating intelligent civilizations when it detects them, leaving behind only those civilizations that *do* encrypt their data/signals.

You really believe that? How do you sleep at night? That's really paranoid you know. But I suppose that is one major possibility if you believe in evolution. There are lots of parasites and creatures that live off of other creatures energy in this world. It reminds me of this science fiction story I read when I was younger where these space pigs came to the earth in supposed peace but they really just came to eat everyone.


The amount of matter+energy in the universe will (so far as we know) never either go down nor go up.

The total amount yes.


there's a lot of unanswered questions related to dark matter that need to be answered before anyone can say for sure. We haven't even *found* dark matter yet, despite the fact that it comprises the bulk of the universe in which we exist.

It supposedly exists. For those of you reading who do not know, dark matter is needed by old age theorists to account for rapid stellar speeds in galaxies. If there is enough of this dark matter, much more than visible matter, then the universe would also be â??closedâ??. Assuming the Big Bang model, a closed universe would eventually collapse back onto itself, if there was enough dark matter. It was hoped that this dark matter would be mostly in the form of small stars called red dwarfs. But Hubble Space Telescope measurements have indicated there are hardly any of these red dwarf stars. So cosmologists must rely more on some type of exotic matter, which has so far been undetected. A further problem is that the red dwarfs they did detect are believed to weigh in at 20 % of the sunâ??s mass, which is contrary to popular models of star formation. One of these red dwarfs was seen to produce a flare, an event supposedly reserved only for more massive stars.

Furthermore, they haven't found any dark matter in the milky way at all :

No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/milky_way.asp)


They are similar to the life-like structures found in ALH84001, the famous Mars meteorite from the Antarctic."

Which turned out to be discounted. For example, there is almost certain proof that the amino acids found in ALH84001 were the result of contamination from Earth, and other â??nanofossilsâ?? were merely inanimate magnetite whiskers plus artefact's of transmission microscopy (TEM). Of course, the humanist-dominated media and assorted â??skepticsâ?? didnâ??t give the retraction anywhere near the same publicity. Most recently they have supposedly come up with new 'evidence' .

from Conclusive evidence for life from Mars? Remember last time! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0302mars_life.asp) :

" The new â??evidenceâ?? is tiny (one-millionth of an inch in diameter) crystals of magnetite, a magnetic oxide of iron (Fe3O4). These were analyzed using a new technique called high-power backscattered scanning electron microscopy (SEM-BSE), a method introduced by two of the researchers (J.W. and C.A.) to study endolithic (inside rock) microorganisms. These crystals supposedly show six key features that indicate that they were made by bacteria rather than forming inorganically:

they are in chains, rather than clumped by magnetic attraction
uniform crystal size and shape within chains
gaps between crystals
orientation of elongated crystals along the chain axis
flexibility of chains
a halo interpreted as a possible remnant of a membrane around chains.
In the same issue of PNAS, a NASA research team led by Dr Kathie Thomas-Keprta of NASAâ??s Johnson Space Center studied single crystals and claimed that their unique shape, which they call truncated hexa-octahedral, is evidence that they were formed by bacteria.3 "

It's hard to find information on nanobes and their proof as organisms of any sorts seems yet to be proven. But when it mentioned the antartic find that brought memories.


So, this means that the DNA data in a nanobe would be around 400 bytes.

They're not even sure it's a living organism. you can't be sure how much information it carries.

[Delta9 UK]

LMAO you can copy and paste all you like - I still stand by my point.

There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better.

There ya go.

With all your links pointing to the same "resource" you really won't get far with your "evidence"

[jamstigator]

No, they don't know whether nanobes are living organisms or not. The problem is, there's no consensus definition of 'life' yet; lots of wrangling over that.

Have you heard about the plasma constructs that have been seen? (Plasma is the fourth state of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma.) Well, anyway, there are plasma constructs that are apparently able to replicate, and they form helical structures not dissimilar to the helixes in DNA. (Seems like the helix is rather universal.) They haven't said that these plasma constructs are 'life', but they haven't ruled it out either, because they do exhibit characteristics we associate with life.

Now, if those *are* alive, that's very interesting, because of the four possible states of matter, plasma is, by far, the most common, much more common than solids, liquids and gases put together. So, it could be that plasma-based life is the most common form of life in the universe. Such life would have very little in common with us though; even if it eventually evolves into something intelligent, (if it hasn't already), we'd have nothing they want, and they'd have nothing we want. Maybe information-trading, but that'd be about it.

[LegalizeTheGreen]

I'm curious, doesn't it sound like natureisawesome is suggesting that all of us that disagee with him are going to hell? That seems as if he is judging us, where the bible clearly states that only God can judge us. why is it that "christians" are always trying to save us heathens when, assuming we are decent people, our souls arn't exactly stained with the blood of the innocents. I have always figured that if God is really going to send all the jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, taoists, scientists, ect to hell, then he isn't the kind of diety I want in my life. thankfully, i believe that God isn't so picky, so I am not too worried for my soul.

[natureisawesome]

LMAO you can copy and paste all you like - I still stand by my point.

There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better.

There ya go.

With all your links pointing to the same "resource" you really won't get far with your "evidence"

Yes there is plenty thermodynamic reason and I'm not wasting my time typing it all again go reread what I've read or check out this site for information on thermodynamics (there are other laws as well but this is the most outstanding one that keeps life from forming from in organic molecules) :

Origin of Life Q&A (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp)
Thermodynamics and Order Q&A (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/thermodynamics.asp)

I just don't even think you care whether it's right or wrong. Surely you didn't even understand what I wrote. If you did, and still wished to deny it, you would need to show me some mechanism or way that inorganic matter can form into complex organic information bearing systems (life) while working against the second law of thermodynamics. But you can't, because there are no exceptions to the second law. Entropy affects both energy and matter. That doesn't really leave anything left.

Why should it matter whether I use 1 site or 5? If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. Approach the argument instead of preconcluding it's wrong by your presupposition and prejudice. Is this another attempt at character assasination? It sounds like you've already made up your mind to begin with, which is far from suprising.

[Staurm]

Wow some size of a post there, wish I had time to get involved in this one. You are talking about entropy and stuff, that kind of scientific rhetoric can force me into an excited state. I might print that out and read it on the train to work tomorrow, if it's less than 10 pages....

[Delta9 UK]

LOL Of course there are no known exceptions to the second law, I didn't mention any did I?

I'm saying life IS NOT a exception. You aren't even arguing with me FFS :wtf:

Creationists mis-represent the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

You are basically saying:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.


The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size.
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy ;). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law, so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently.

I would post more. but its you who are mis-representing facts and we can't be arguing over something you don't accept as the same version of reality :wtf:

[Delta9 UK]

Why should it matter whether I use 1 site or 5? If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. Approach the argument instead of preconcluding it's wrong by your presupposition and prejudice. Is this another attempt at character assasination? It sounds like you've already made up your mind to begin with, which is far from suprising.

Its wrong, and Don't try and be funny - I have an honours degree in Medical Microbiology and Genetics so if that's "my presupposition and prejudice" then I paid a lot for it :wtf:

Come over to my Macroevolution thread instead :asskick:

and stop trying to suggest this is a personal attack - I'm attacking your ideas, I'm sure in real life you are a splendid chap :jointsmile:

[natureisawesome]

No, they don't know whether nanobes are living organisms or not. The problem is, there's no consensus definition of 'life' yet; lots of wrangling over that.

How do they not know what life is? How can they search for life if they don't know what it is? I have life, you have life. Rocks do not have life. I think it's pretty obvious what life is. If they're wrangling over something like plants yeah that can't form by evolution either, not that they've found any outside of our planet.


Have you heard about the plasma constructs that have been seen? (Plasma is the fourth state of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma.) Well, anyway, there are plasma constructs that are apparently able to replicate, and they form helical structures not dissimilar to the helixes in DNA. (Seems like the helix is rather universal.) They haven't said that these plasma constructs are 'life', but they haven't ruled it out either, because they do exhibit characteristics we associate with life.

well, I've defenitley been led on a wild goose chase with this one. First of all, there are very few articles on this, and I first found one blogger on evoilutionspace who qouted another article from sciencedaily which got it's information from institute of physics which got it's information from New journal of physics. There's also one other article from the search for terrestrial intelligence. So there's really very little about this on either side of the debate. It also seems to be very new, from just this past week.

Here's what I've learned about it so far. It's not the plasma itself which is supposed to have life in it, it is inorganic "dust" within the plasma. The dust forms into spiral shaped structures. They use the term helical which really just means spiral, obviously meant to push the reader to think of it more closely resembling dna. But just because something looks "helical" by no means does that make it dna or any time of gene carring information necessary for life.

from the institute of physics article :


"However, Tsytovich and his colleagues demonstrated, using a computer model of molecular dynamics, that particles in a plasma can undergo self-organization as electronic charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized. This effect results in microscopic strands of solid particles that twist into corkscrew shapes, or helical structures. These helical strands are themselves electronically charged and are attracted to each other."

So what. They are still inorganic molecules. If they form corkscrews and attach together, that's not evolution, that's just chemistry. Elements and chemicals that go through a chemical reaction " self-organize" all the time. An obvious one is when water splits apart into different gases or comes together to form a liquid. They apparently mean to suggest that since these molecules are cahrges while they are in strands that it appears to be a dna like structure because the molecules in our body are charged also. Of course it's much more complicated then that and there are other known inorganic charged molecules found in the natural enviroment for sure.


They can, for instance, divide, or bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure.

This appears to be pure word play. If a stand of "helical" inorganic structures and it divides or splits, it's merely two stands of spiral shaped inorganic molecules!


These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma.

One again their terminology appears to be very depective. Evolve simply means change in this istance through a chemical reaction, but they want you to cnnect evolve with evolution. of course the fittest structures in the plasma are left behind, they are the fittest. This is chemistry. Not evolution.


So, could helical clusters formed from interstellar dust be somehow alive? "These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," says Tsytovich, "they are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve".

These are the properties he says qualify them for "inorganic living matter". Which is interesting because according to what organic means it is life such as plants and matter and carbon compounds of living things but this has no life or genetic information observable and from what the article said it's not carbon based at all. So basiclly he's saying nonliving living matter. By autonomous he can't mean relating to the autonomous nervous system because their is no observable nervous system let alone dna. He must mean that it is in an indepent self governing state, which must be referring to how the structures forming by thier own intrinsic chemistry and physics of the structures themselves.

Hwen he says reproduce obviously they not reproducing by any organic processes so he must be reffering to how the chains split or some other process intrinsic to the nature of the molecule. evolve simply means change and is very vague and meaningless. There are other examples of chemicals that change when they are introdcued into different processes like interacting with another element or molecule.


He adds that the plasma conditions needed to form these helical structures are common in outer space.

That's interesting. I know that most of the stars and planets if I remember correctly are supposed to be plasma and this seems to be a generally non-disfuted fact on both sides of the debate but I can see how this could in fact be an argument against evolution. If these structures are so common and the intrinsic structure of the particles may cause them to
somehow form into dna like they seem to be hoping then wouldn't life in outer space be plainly evidence all through the galaxy, let alone the universe? from what they're saying it's not carbon based and so wouldn't depend on the same things as we do for life.

I find this whole thing very outraging because they're obviously not being honest with thier wordings. Basically thier aguement seems to be, it looks to the eye similar to helical structures in dna and so maybe it is dna or will turn into dna which is lucricrous. Just because it looks like it doesn't mean it is or will in any way form into extremely complex dna and rna or some other information bearing system able to reproduce or have a consciousness or central nervous system.

From what I've read elsewhere " this throws a small wrench in the current search-for-ET works, since todayâ??s astrobiologists â??have based all of their searches and instruments on the existence of carbon andâ??on Mars, for exampleâ??on minerals that only could have formed in the presence of water.â?� Instead, it seems they should be searching for interstellar dust devils."

What do you think of what I wrote, I mean that's what this thread is about. I've answered some of your criticisms, not that I'm not find with discussing those things. You seem to have disagreements and I'd like to talk about that.

[natureisawesome]

Delta 9 i'll get to you, first to drink a beer.

[Hardcore Newbie]

But how do we know? How do we know that anything exists outside of you? Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove. And besides, all evidence suggests that everything else is just as real as you.

Odd. The very tactic used by many to "prove" that God exists (it's nopt possible to disprove), is the same tactic we're now being asked not to use because it would be "unrealistic".

Also, If one believes that everything is an illusion, evidence doesn't really matter, as it would be an illusion also. This is what happens when someone has a view of the world and tries to make the evidence fit.


These cannot tell us anything about who God is. The public schools should be informed of this.All philosophies that deny the existence of God are incorrect. Now to the next category : pantheism vs. supernaturalism. If you'll look back you'll remember that pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is God, that it has always existed and is responsible for creating life. But remember our universe is unable to create anything but degradation. It is inadequate, it can't even sustain itself, let alone create life.The existence of a god or God does not disprove evolution. You just think it does, or you want it to be so. God could easily have created a system for evolution if it pleased.

And the fact that you disallow pantheism, who's to say that the universe itself isn't supernatural? Why is that not a possibility? A supernatural universe would be able to do whatever the hell it wanted.

Here's what I *can* accept from what you've written, merely as possibilities, are that

I can accept that a god may have created the universe. But, I'm also willing to believe accept that the laws as we see them today need refinement, or are completely wrong (you know, possibly being illusion and all).

I've recently converted to Pastafarianism being crossed with Last-Thursdayism. According to the evidence I've gathered, I am right, and you are wrong. You'll probably try to convince me that I'm looking at the evidence wrong.

Your use of "scripture" was nice too, but we all know that true scripture can only be originally written with (or in) Pasta, and since your "scriptures" were originally written on scrolls. then they must obviously be false.

[jamstigator]

The origin of life is just one in a very long series of questions that used to, out of ignorance, be answered, 'Well, dunno...so it must've been God.' That's what religions do, they embrace ignorance, and ascribe anything they don't understand to God. But just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we won't understand it eventually. And even if there are some questions we *never* answer satisfactorily, that still does not mean the root cause is God. I hope we don't answer every single question -- that'd render the universe a rather boring place.

So, DNA is complicated. Many living things are complicated. So what? Fractal images can be complicated too. String theory is complicated. Dark matter is complicated. Making a really superb chili is complicated. Doesn't mean that God had anything to do with anything, or even exists. It just means that the universe in which we live can be kinda confusing, and we haven't yet figured out how everything works.

Now, if while looking through DNA scientists find some molecules signed 'Designed by God. Copyright (C) 4000 B.C. All Rights Reserved' or something, hey, maybe we should start lending more credence to theory that God did some work. Wake me up if that happens. ;)

[natureisawesome]

Legalize the green said :


I'm curious, doesn't it sound like natureisawesome is suggesting that all of us that disagee with him are going to hell? That seems as if he is judging us, where the bible clearly states that only God can judge us..

I haven't judgeed you at all. If that's what you mean by judge, the bible does not define it that way. Let's say you see somebody wearing something you don't like and so then you go up and punch him in the face. That's judging. That's what Jesus said we shouldn't do. We not to repay evil for evil or carry out punishment on anyone. If you don't beleive me, I suggest you download esword and study in in the greek. I assure you, we are all allowed an opinion and to make discernments about others and to speak out against wrong. Trying to save you is actually the opposite of judging. I recognise mans fallen state and I'm not trying to lead him to punishment or judgement, but to free you from judgement. If that's what judging means , that is how you defined it then we all must live in ignorance. i don't see anywhere in the bible where it says I have to do that.


why is it that "christians" are always trying to save us heathens when, assuming we are decent people, our souls arn't exactly stained with the blood of the innocents. I have always figured that if God is really going to send all the jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, taoists, scientists, ect to hell, then he isn't the kind of diety I want in my life.

Everyone believes what they are doing is "right". Everyone has thier own set of rules they like to follow. But God has his own rules. If you break the law by one rule, your're guilty of breaking the law period. These are not just crimes against man neccessarily but against God. Mankind is not full of love. It's full of evil, and everyone points the finger at someone else while they all fall into a pit together. Sinning against God is sinning against an almighty eternal perfect and holy God. He doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but he said he won't strive with man forever, and when it comes down to it, the punishment he's given warning of is the one that rightly fits. No other punishment would be enough. That's how awesome and holy he is, and when people gasp at how cruel he could be by sending people to hell they are willingly ignorant of his divine nature. God won't just let it go, there needs to be a process of redemption. Just because you do some nice things or belive in "love" whatever that means to you (it certainly seems to mean different things to different people) that won't save you. neither will being a buddhism or pagan or muslim.I wish you understood how badly God does want to accept everyone, but he can't because he won't allow evil in his presence. Indeed by his very natuire, it is good for love to hate evil. I'll stop there.

[natureisawesome]

Wow some size of a post there, wish I had time to get involved in this one. You are talking about entropy and stuff, that kind of scientific rhetoric can force me into an excited state. I might print that out and read it on the train to work tomorrow, if it's less than 10 pages....

You're welcome to join in staurm. I think most people can read the whole thing in less than an hour. defenitely a lot less than I took to type it.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Everyone believes what they are doing is "right". Everyone has thier own set of rules they like to follow. But God has his own rules. If you break the law by one rule, your're guilty of breaking the law period. These are not just crimes against man neccessarily but against God. Mankind is not full of love. It's full of evil, and everyone points the finger at someone else while they all fall into a pit together. Sinning against God is sinning against an almighty eternal perfect and holy God. He doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but he said he won't strive with man forever, and when it comes down to it, the punishment he's given warning of is the one that rightly fits. No other punishment would be enough. That's how awesome and holy he is, and when people gasp at how cruel he could be by sending people to hell they are willingly ignorant of his divine nature. God won't just let it go, there needs to be a process of redemption. Just because you do some nice things or belive in "love" whatever that means to you (it certainly seems to mean different things to different people) that won't save you. neither will being a buddhism or pagan or muslim.I wish you understood how badly God does want to accept everyone, but he can't because he won't allow evil in his presence. Indeed by his very natuire, it is good for love to hate evil. I'll stop there.God must have a very warped sense of "love". You'd think for someone (or something) that loves us so much, he'd make his alleged presence easier for stupid ol' me to see.

[natureisawesome]

delta 9 uk said:


LOL Of course there are no known exceptions to the second law, I didn't mention any did I?

I'm saying life IS NOT a exception. You aren't even arguing with me FFS

When you argue that anything plain and clear that thermodynamics poses no challange for inorganic matter to form into complex organic information bearing structures that can reproduce (Dna) then you are argueing for another exception to the second law.

Life is an exception, this was already adressed in the original post:

How does life delay a fundamental law of the universe? It doesn't actually.


You and your environment decay at a certain rate. But since you are alive you can eat part of your environment. As a result that piece of food is decayed very rapidly, and you remain less degraded.

How does life channel the energy found in food into the specific
functions of maintaining it's delicate and intricate structures? A major part of any living cell is it's blueprint, it's DNA. These blueprints are designs for the cellular machinery which is designed so it can acquire energy from food, carry on the functions of life, and duplicate itself over and over again. It works because it makes a path of less resistance making probable what would otherwise be impossible.

The degradation of information bearing systems such as DNA and the 2nd law are related. The link to how the 2nd law applies to energy and information is found in thermodynamic probability, a field pioneered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1896 and confirmed by Max Plank in 1912. Modern statistical thermodynamics is used to clearly show that information is subject to the same degrading force that constantly increases the amount of entropy in our universe.

The second "exception" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only way to make progress up the escalator. Things can only be more organized by intention. Intelligence and the ability to apply force are required to assemble a computer for instance, or a submarine, or a watch.


You are basically saying:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.


The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing.It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

Whichi s really just another way of saying the same thing. The heat cannot move to the warmer one, because that would require a decrease in entropy. Yes, when it comes to information, all things tend toward disorder.

This does not prevent increasing order because


* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

It doesn't matter whether it's a closed sytstem or an open system or an isolated system entropy applies to all of them. There are no exceptions just as I've told you several times. It doesn't " power local decreases in entropy". That's not true. complex machinery in the form of life is required to harness that energy and put it to use for the necessary processes for life. Processes in living things are totally unlike any process we find in the natural chemical interactions we find in nature, or anything like the occurances in elements in molecules that are intrinsic to the chemistry and phsics of that substance. It's not following the natural processes of inorganic material but following upon a totally different path.

I already adressed this is in my previous post # 17. :


Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun wonâ??t make you more complexâ??the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sunâ??s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.


* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size.

I've already addressed this in my previous post as well Excuse me for posting it again but you're not getting it and it's too tiring to explain in on my own over and over again :


Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only â??ABâ??, and â??print 6 timesâ??.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions â??more of the sameâ?? x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signalâ??specified complexityâ??e.g. â??I love youâ??, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesnâ??t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

You see? Life requires not only order but complexity as well, and this can only come from intelligence able to direct force. Proteions in dna are non-random. You should look into information science. A good book to read on it is :

In the Beginning Was Information - Answers Bookstore (http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-Was-Information,4631,226.aspx)


* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

This was answered already too! You're just not paying attention. Remember the ice example:


When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.



In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

I wasn't explicit enough. As It mentioned in the original post the kind of order, that is regularity in something like a crystal is the opposite of complexity.



The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection.

That's rubbish. Not only do mutations not cause an increase in genetic information in an already formed organism (and even if they did the nimber of mutations causing losses of information and randomness and destruction of information from radiation are so much more it would work against it) but that doesn't even touch upon the processes needed to form the organism from inorganic molecules in the first place.


All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.

At first I felt like laughing, and then I felt began to feel very sad for you. Yes these processes : reproduction, heritable variation, and selection do indeed occur. These are natural proccesses part of natural reproduction and minor changes (microevolution) from genentic information and variability already present in dna. Oh it is indeed to the detriment of evolution. If a mutation makes things worse, how can it make things better? It's making things worse and better? You we do pass on copying errors (mutations) to our offspring in nature, and I'm not sorry to tell you that this isn't making the human race better. In fact it's making us worse. Many diseases are caused by this and physical abnormalities in humans and other animals. Radiation doesn't make things better. They've been hitting bugs with it for around a hundred years, and all they get is deformaties and variation within it's own kind. THAT's IT! Nothing else, no new wings when the isect had no information for wings, no change of hairs into feathers, no recorded credible increase of genetic information has ever been recorded. 2nd law is in extreme detriment to evolution.


Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy .

They're idiots and they should find new jobs. We arn't missing any information to make a conclusion on this. The conclusion has already been made and all the information neccessary to make it is already lying on the table.


Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy .

Randomization cannot prodice complexity. It can't. I know these kind of ideas are very typical of evolution though. For instance the current theory of the big bag proposed that all of the matter in the universe sprung out of "zero dimension" with "infinite heat". Zero dimension huh. Last I checked there zero was another term for nothing. So the universe orginated from the nonexistent dimension. It's just full of this type of stuff complwexity from randomness, life from nolife life from processes that we know to create corruption.



I would post more. but its you who are mis-representing facts and we can't be arguing over something you don't accept as the same version of reality.

You indeed live in a different world.

[natureisawesome]

H.b. said:


Odd. The very tactic used by many to "prove" that God exists (it's nopt possible to disprove), is the same tactic we're now being asked not to use because it would be "unrealistic".

I don't understand what you're referring to. can you please elaborate.


Also, If one believes that everything is an illusion, evidence doesn't really matter, as it would be an illusion also. This is what happens when someone has a view of the world and tries to make the evidence fit.

An illusion is in the eyes of a beholder, but nomatter what you think of, you are the beholder. This confirms somethings existence
(you) because the existence of your thoughts, and the existence reuqired to think of them is undeniable. You just can't get any deeper then that. If you choose to deny that you exist, then you live in hipocricy. The same perception and mind we use to recognise our own existence is also the same mind we use to recognise everything else in this world. Nothing points to the contrary, and there is no "alternative thought system" or other level or dimension of existence or knoledge to turn to to challange your perception of the universe. Even if there was, this is no way would negate the existence of what we observe now in our own dimension. This is the ultimate axiom and nothing stands against it. You cannot deny yourself.


The existence of a god or God does not disprove evolution. You just think it does, or you want it to be so. God could easily have created a system for evolution if it pleased.

You're right he could have. But the natural laws and the universe would be very different place than we know now. There is also a different kind of evidence I turn to within me called my conscience, which is also held firm by my recognition of God's nature shown through the things he has created that a world where the existence of life is dependant upon death and corruption and neccessarily includes the suffering of the weak and perservation of the storng is not a world created by a God of love. This is in fact exactly the type of scenario Jesus hated and preaches against in the bible. The God of the bible has mercy on the weak and hates those that take advantage of those weaker or less smart then them for personal gain. But selfishness is a theme required for darwinian evolution.


And the fact that you disallow pantheism, who's to say that the universe itself isn't supernatural? Why is that not a possibility? A supernatural universe would be able to do whatever the hell it wanted.

Is the universe natural or supernatural? A natural universe cannot be supernatural. They cannot exist in the same place. Atoms are natural, physical things. If there are supernatural forces that affect the natural world, they must therefore be outside the natural universe.

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.


I've recently converted to Pastafarianism being crossed with Last-Thursdayism. According to the evidence I've gathered, I am right, and you are wrong. You'll probably try to convince me that I'm looking at the evidence wrong.

Your use of "scripture" was nice too, but we all know that true scripture can only be originally written with (or in) Pasta, and since your "scriptures" were originally written on scrolls. then they must obviously be false.

Please forgive me but I don't know what you're saying man. It just sounds like total insanity.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I don't understand what you're referring to. can you please elaborate.I'm referring to what most believers use as their defensive mechanism. As long as you can't disprove something, they feel it's ok to believe in it. God can not be disproven.


An illusion is in the eyes of a beholder, but nomatter what you think of, you are the beholder. This confirms somethings existence
(you) because the existence of your thoughts, and the existence reuqired to think of them is undeniable. You just can't get any deeper then that. If you choose to deny that you exist, then you live in hipocricy. The same perception and mind we use to recognise our own existence is also the same mind we use to recognise everything else in this world. Nothing points to the contrary, and there is no "alternative thought system" or other level or dimension of existence or knoledge to turn to to challange your perception of the universe. Even if there was, this is no way would negate the existence of what we observe now in our own dimension. This is the ultimate axiom and nothing stands against it. You cannot deny yourself. And if I was supernatural?




You're right he could have. But the natural laws and the universe would be very different place than we know now. There is also a different kind of evidence I turn to within me called my conscience, which is also held firm by my recognition of God's nature shown through the things he has created that a world where the existence of life is dependant upon death and corruption and neccessarily includes the suffering of the weak and perservation of the storng is not a world created by a God of love. This is in fact exactly the type of scenario Jesus hated and preaches against in the bible. The God of the bible has mercy on the weak and hates those that take advantage of those weaker or less smart then them for personal gain. But selfishness is a theme required for darwinian evolution.
Really? I have a conscience as well. I don't see how a conscience means that God exists, or is evidence of anything divine.


Is the universe natural or supernatural? A natural universe cannot be supernatural. They cannot exist in the same place. Atoms are natural, physical things. If there are supernatural forces that affect the natural world, they must therefore be outside the natural universe.What's your definition of "natural"? I'm suggesting that the world we perceive today and the way we perceive it are wrong. It has to be. Most perceptions that man has made over time have been false. By super natural, I mean things that we don't understand about the universe. If someone claims to know everything in the universe, show me them so I can laugh.

And maybe the universe isn't natural? There are things about the world we live in that we don't know, that may defy our assumptions.


The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.
...assuming that these laws are correct, assuming the universe is natural.


Please forgive me but I don't know what you're saying man. It just sounds like total insanity.Yeah that was kinda supposed'ta sorta be a bit wonky.

I've stated that I am a converted Pastafarian (believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and a Last Thursdayist (the idea that the world was created last Thursday, but with the appearance of age: people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth). I'm suggesting that the world was created Last Thursday (always capitalized) by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I noticed that you tried to use holy books that haven't been written in or with Pasta. So I don't know why you're trying to use them as proof. That's all I was saying. If you want to use scripture, find a plate of spaghetti and just start eating. If you see a message, then you might be able to convince me.

I'm also wondering, since you seem like a smart guy, how you came to be deceived by Xianity, and why do you deny that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

[LegalizeTheGreen]

Rofl at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is logic worthy of a fanatical christian!
A+ Newbie!

It is always sad to see a Christian attempting to tread water in the "Science Pool", and even more so when they think they are doing the backstroke while they drown.

It also truely disapoints me when someone tries to "save me" because while perhaps not the best christian, I have no doubt that God loves me, in whatever form he takes (be it Allah, God, Yaweh, Buddha, Zeus, ect). I have no doubt that being Omnibenevolent, God loves me inspite of my failings as a human, just as he forgives Natureisaewsome for being overzealous, "holier than thou" and judgemental to a fault.

the fact that someone is interpreting what God says, feels, and thinks reeks of arogance and IMHO should never be taken seriously, especially when used to try to "convert the heathens." Perhaps instead of blindly following what men say God wants, you should think about how a God that is perfect, loving, and kind can condem the vast majority of humankind for the simple aspect of not being christisan, because the God I believe in is understanding enough to forgive, and welcomes all good people into whatever heaven there is, and be it Jesus, nirvana, or 70 virgins that are waiting, will welcome with open arms all decent people, regardless of their faith.

shame on all "holier than thou christians", what makes you think you know God any more then anyone else? God is divine, how can you possibly comprehend anything God wants?

[jaGerbom]

omg that is too much reading for me. ill just put out my opinion and say that i believe that there is some sort of god responsible for our existence. But i dont believe any of the religions in this world have much truth behind them at all. That being said, i think the bible is just a plaguerized book based on astrology.




Debate.

[natureisawesome]

jagerbom said:


That being said, i think the bible is just a plaguerized book based on astrology.

I'm interested to hear how you came to this conclusion.

[LegalizeTheGreen]

well, it is pretty obvious that alot of the bible was streamlined to be more acceptable to the pagans (astrology refrence) such as the changing of Christmas to the Pagan holiday date, and while not only obvious, it is documented as well. Hell, Voodoo is a combination of african religions and christianity, in order to at least partially convert the "heathens".

Christianity has even gone as far as taking polytheistic religions and comparing the saints to the lesser Gods in order to make the religion more accesible and easier to assimilate into.

I don't blame the religion though, I blame the insane people that were so desperate to convert the unbelievers that they would go as far as to "adapt" their religion and make it more appealing. This is why christians arn't usually taken seriously when they talk about the bible being 100% true.

[natureisawesome]

well, it is pretty obvious that alot of the bible was streamlined to be more acceptable to the pagans (astrology reference) such as the changing of Christmas to the Pagan holiday date, and while not only obvious, it is documented as well. Hell, Voodoo is a combination of african religions and Christianity, in order to at least partially convert the "heathens".

Christianity has even gone as far as taking polytheistic religions and comparing the saints to the lesser Gods in order to make the religion more accessible and easier to assimilate into.

I don't blame the religion though, I blame the insane people that were so desperate to convert the unbelievers that they would go as far as to "adapt" their religion and make it more appealing. This is why Christians ain't usually taken seriously when they talk about the bible being 100% true.

I have done a lot of research on what you're talking about and I won't try to explain it all here. But basically here's how it goes. I'll probably have to repeat this numerous times in this forum but here goes.

What you're talking about were things all performed by the roman catholic church. The Roman catholic church is not a Christian church. Shortly after the flood The sons of Noah ( Shem ham and jape th) had descendent's and began to repopulate the earth. The first began in the area of the bible lands in the land of ancient Babylon. One of the descendent's was a man named nimrod whose name meant mighty hunter before the Lord. From what we know about Nimrod, he was a very evil man. He is responsible for building the original Babylon and he was a vicious king and conquerer who deified himself and made himself a God. But that's not all. There is confusion just like there are in all mystery cults but basically what happened was he had this wife named Semiramis also called Ishtar or Astarte etc. Basically through a series of events which would take a time to explain Nimrod and Semiramis deified themselves and called themselves Gods and took advantage of the prophecy that had been given of the messiah to the sons of Adam and eve and deceived people and tried to say that he was the "one" . and when Nimrod died she took advantage of this and established her self among the heathen as the "mother of the Gods" . Her alleged son also became deified but her status remained above both of them. This mystery cult outlived far longer than Babylon ever did (in fact it still lives on today). In fact through various hidden methods such as symbolic representations and morphing of names and such this mystery religion spread throughout the whole earth. All of the ancient Gods names you may be familiar with from Greece, rome, egypt, India, Iceland, Eourope, Africa, even as far as places like south america and and china and native American cultures it can be traced to and are rooted in the same Babylonian mystery religion. Also the idol God baal that caused Israel to stumble is none other than nimrod, and can be traced back to the Babylonian mystery religion also.

Now when Christianity came along, there was a great falling away shortly after the apostles died and in fact was started to grow long before that. Soon the church was full of apostasy and had been infiltrated by such as the false Egyptian church, itself traced back to babylon, hid behind a false veil of Christianity.

When the Christianity reached Rome, basically what happened was the church leaders who were far compromised already, spread a door wide open for paganism. On the surface, it looked like the church had grown in popularity overnight, but in reality the old temples had been merely refurnished to give the allusion of a Christian theme. A temple which used to be to dionysus would read something like " cathedral of st. dionysus" and such like. In reality paganism had never been abolished but only absorbed into the church. As time when on the
mystery religion working in secret would do everything it could to change the doctrine and rituals and symbolism and everything in the church to be in fact one and the same of the babylonian religion, with the false appearance of Christianity. The same is true to this day. The mystery of iniquity working through the false church pretty much rules the world, and not only established the American government, but continues to rule America and deceive you all and the whole world to this day. And the truth is, there are probably only a handful of Christians on the earth right now.


And all of this is why in the book of revelation it says :

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

[Delta9 UK]

^^ He doesn't mean that - he means the story of Jesus was just copied from the Story of Horus - and I think he's right.

There it took 30 seconds

[natureisawesome]

And guess where the story of horus originated from.

Babylon. I know what I'm talking about.

[Staurm]

I read two pages of that this morning NatureIsAwesome, I think your account of entropy and how it relates to/does not entirely explain life is inconsistent and well basically completely wrong, sorry. Entropy is a measure of the flow of a system from disorder to order, not the other way around, you contradicted yourself. If you wish to understand how life forms out of a universe which scientists used to think was governed by the laws of thermodynamics and physics alone then I suggest reading The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra which gives one of the best accounts of the work of Ilya Prigogine on dissipative structures and how this phenomenon provides a model for how organisms formed into the complex and counter entropic patterns we see today. You suggested that in order to counter the effects of entropic flow lifeforms eat enough food to sustain an adequate degree of complexity, and you also employ mechanical rhetoric. In fact, the food we eat becomes part of our structure which is in a state of quasi-equilibrium, a closed structure but open to a flow of energy which it harnesses also from food and the universal life energy.

[Iambreathingin]

The bible lies, or at teh very least has been selectivly edited.

Even people who believe what it teaches should appreciate that, and stop using it as evidence.

[natureisawesome]

Entropy is a measure of the flow of a system from disorder to order, not the other way around, you contradicted yourself.

That's..I can't believe you are saying that.

Entropy is a measure of a a sytems unavailability to do work. The energy available in our universe to do work is being lost...I just don't understand how you can say that. That's totally wrong. I'm seriously baffled, like ..

Things don't naturally become more complex by the 2nd law. They become less complex. Period.

" The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. "

I'm tired of arguing about whether things are closed or not closed. It's irrelevent. There are not exceptions to the second law.

Yes our bodies do harness energy from food, and complex machinery is required to do this.

[natureisawesome]

The bible lies, or at teh very least has been selectivly edited.

Even people who believe what it teaches should appreciate that, and stop using it as evidence.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven false. According to the same process that historians apply to verify the authenticity of other manuscripts and historical artifacts, it is history by all counts. You are the one who should be recognising the bible as a history book.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven wrong, and you have no basis for concluding that anyone has ever edited it. It's only your own presuppositions. It has no logical basis.

[Hardcore Newbie]

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven false. According to the same process that historians apply to verify the authenticity of other manuscripts and historical artifacts, it is history by all counts. You are the one who should be recognising the bible as a history book.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven wrong, and you have no basis for concluding that anyone has ever edited it. It's only your own presuppositions. It has no logical basis.
Because you can't prove them false, remember? We can't prove that a donkey didn't talk some thousands of years ago. All we can do it say "Are there any talking donkeys today? Nope" So why would there be talking donkeys in the past?

[Staurm]

That's..I can't believe you are saying that.

Entropy is a measure of a a sytems unavailability to do work. The energy available in our universe to do work is being lost...I just don't understand how you can say that. That's totally wrong. I'm seriously baffled, like ..

Things don't naturally become more complex by the 2nd law. They become less complex. Period.

" The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. "

I'm tired of arguing about whether things are closed or not closed. It's irrelevent. There are not exceptions to the second law.

Yes our bodies do harness energy from food, and complex machinery is required to do this.

Again you choose to employ mechanistic terminology.

I'm not saying it is the second law which causes things to become more complex, its quasi-equilibrium, as I have already indicated. Dissipative structures defy the 2nd law by forming into structures which harness the flow of enery through them, in the same way an organism does, or a planetary biosphere such as the earth. This requires the harnessing structure to be closed, but at the same time open to a flow of energy through it.

It was you who said the second law causes things to become more complex, you are confusing order with disorder, perhaps unintentionally. Either way what you said about entropy and life was fundamentally incorrect.

[imitator]

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven false. According to the same process that historians apply to verify the authenticity of other manuscripts and historical artifacts, it is history by all counts. You are the one who should be recognising the bible as a history book.

There is nothing in the bible that has ever been proven wrong, and you have no basis for concluding that anyone has ever edited it. It's only your own presuppositions. It has no logical basis.

And sir, you cant prove, through any means, that Buddhism isnt a real religion, and that previous Buddha's have not existed.

Dont tread the path of "you cant disprove it, so it must be true", you wont like the walk, trust me.


"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance


Some words to think about...

[natureisawesome]

Staurm said:


It was you who said the second law causes things to become more complex, you are confusing order with disorder, perhaps unintentionally. Either way what you said about entropy and life was fundamentally incorrect.

where did I ever say that?? The logic in the original post goes the exact opposite, and I suggest you reread it.

Actually it seems you said in your post before exactly what you're charging me with right now:


"Entropy is a measure of the flow of a system from disorder to order, "

was that a typo?

It's also important to make a distinction between randomness, complexity and order as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread. The argument goes like this (there a lot more to it of course)

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.


When you say dissapative structures do you mean things like ice? I've alreadly touched on that before in this thread too if that's what you mean. (#35)

[natureisawesome]

Because you can't prove them false, remember? We can't prove that a donkey didn't talk some thousands of years ago. All we can do it say "Are there any talking donkeys today? Nope" So why would there be talking donkeys in the past?

What I'm saying is that there are methods that are used to determine whether the information contained in historial manuscripts are false or authentic. When the bible is subject to the same test that all other history is, it passes with flying colors. So, if you won't consider the bible as history, then toss out everything else too while your at it. History of Greece, alexander the great, Rome, pretty much everything. The fact is no we can't prove it the way you want it to be proven but nothing else in history can either really (perhaps if it was on video camera then maybe you would beleive but looking at how people doubt even that these day it wouldn't suprise me if you didn't). we can't prove anything supernatural happened like a donkey talking like you want it to be proven but there are other ways to verify the bible as a historical record and for it's trustworthiness. We can look at other historical artifacts from the same time period, we can look at archeological evidence etc. we can also look at fulfillment of prophecy an accuracy to what we know about the universe and the things in it etc. It's a faith and I never said it's wasn't. The fact of the matter is that it is something you have to recognise in your heart. You have to recognise God's nature in your heart. You have to recognise his wisdom in your heart. You have to look at the world and recognise that the world is made through the inspiration of his divine nature in your heart. You have to recognise that the world is corrupt and God's eternal nature in your heart. You can't prove it through your eyes you have to prove it in your heart. You can't prove eternal nature through yuor eyes, but you can prove it in your heart.

And so it's a combination. You have evidence in this world on one hand, but that doesn't cover everything. The evidence you can perceive in your heart is another. And there's no logical reason for you to say that I can't use evidence from the heart as proof. Who's to say that the evidence from the heart isn't as firm as what we see? In reality though they deny it, even atheists attest to a greater spiritual truth of good and evil, though they deny it and contradict themselves in thier philosophy of humanism.

[natureisawesome]

imitator said:


And sir, you cant prove, through any means, that Buddhism isnt a real religion, and that previous Buddha's have not existed.

Dont tread the path of "you cant disprove it, so it must be true", you wont like the walk, trust me.

I can prove buddhism is a false religion if it contradicts what we know about life and the universe indeed I can. And I believe I did it in my original post.

[imitator]

imitator said:



I can prove buddhism is a false religion if it contradicts what we know about life and the universe indeed I can. And I believe I did it in my original post.

Actually you came far from it, because Buddhism actually works better with science then Christianity does. Nothing you said in that post refutes anything Buddhism teaches and states, unless you count your large logical jump from the slightly flawed science you mentioned, to a God having to exist, and it having to be YOUR God.

[imitator]

imitator said:



I can prove buddhism is a false religion if it contradicts what we know about life and the universe indeed I can. And I believe I did it in my original post.

Also, you assume too much. You make the assumption that what you know now is definitely the truth, and that it can not possibly be wrong.

Many times throughout the history of man, have we proven wrong what was believed to be "known" to all. Our knowledge is forever expanding, and as time goes on, we find peices to the big puzzle that change how we view everything else that we "knew".

[Hardcore Newbie]

we can't prove anything supernatural happened like a donkey talking like you want it to be proven but there are other ways to verify the bible as a historical record and for it's trustworthiness.
So since the Bible has some truth that can be verified, the rest of it must be true? If that were the case, anytime a liar wanted to deceive someone, all they have to do is tell mostly truth, which makes the rest of their statements are believable, no matter how absurd. I do not believe in talking donkeys. I see little reason to take a book with talking donkeys as fact.


You have to recognise God's nature in your heart. You have to recognise his wisdom in your heart. You have to look at the world and recognise that the world is made through the inspiration of his divine nature in your heart. You have to recognise that the world is corrupt and God's eternal nature in your heart.
I *have* to? What happens if I attempt to and find nothing?


And so it's a combination. You have evidence in this world on one hand, but that doesn't cover everything. The evidence you can perceive in your heart is another. And there's no logical reason for you to say that I can't use evidence from the heart as proof.
I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence from the heart", I will assume it means Values and beliefs. Obviously correct me if i'm wrong in the assumption. So I look down in my heart (or use my brain, since the heart only feels in a symbolical sense) and come to the conclusion that God's version of morality is immoral to me, then I must be right, right? I mean, the evidence was right there in my heart.


In reality though they deny it, even atheists attest to a greater spiritual truth of good and evil, though they deny it and contradict themselves in thier philosophy of humanism.Since when do atheists believe in a "spiritual truth"? And how do they contradict themselves with humanism, assuming of course that all atheists subscribe to humanism, which of course they all don't.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator said:


Many times throughout the history of man, have we proven wrong what was believed to be "known" to all. Our knowledge is forever expanding, and as time goes on, we find pieces to the big puzzle that change how we view everything else that we "knew".

Many times throughout history there was born a boy or girl who grew up into a stupid ignorant man or woman. But just because there's a lot of stupid ignorant people doesn't mean the facts arn't facts or they are totally ambiguous. A fact is a fact whether anybody is too stupid and ignorant to know it or not. But at there same time there have been some people who were born and grew up to have some common sense and wisdom. And those things never change. And in every generation there are those few who carry the torch, whether their parents taught them or they were rescued from the plague of stupidity and insanity of this world. And the truth is, yes we do learn a lot of new things and make mistakes, but on the other hand there's nothing new under the sun. You may think it's new, but look back it'll be there.

I see new information and new knowledge something that changes how I view what I know in the sense that it opens up a greater view, a greater understanding. But it's like with some theories they arn't negated but they become molded together with the new information and perhaps absorbed into something greater than itself.

[imitator]

Imitator said:



Many times throughout history there was born a boy or girl who grew up into a stupid ignorant man or woman. But just because there's a lot of stupid ignorant people doesn't mean the facts arn't facts or they are totally ambiguous. A fact is a fact whether anybody is too stupid and ignorant to know it or not. But at there same time there have been some people who were born and grew up to have some common sense and wisdom. And those things never change. And in every generation there are those few who carry the torch, whether their parents taught them or they were rescued from the plague of stupidity and insanity of this world. And the truth is, yes we do learn a lot of new things and make mistakes, but on the other hand there's nothing new under the sun. You may think it's new, but look back it'll be there.

I see new information and new knowledge something that changes how I view what I know in the sense that it opens up a greater view, a greater understanding. But it's like with some theories they arn't negated but they become molded together with the new information and perhaps absorbed into something greater than itself.

I loathe using this as an example, because its so cliche, but...

What about during the times where everyone believed the world was flat. Or that the sun revolved around the earth? That was truth, that was fact, during its hayday, but we know now that it wasnt true, at all. There was no molding or morphing to be had there, they were blatantly false, but believed to be true at the time.

Even right now, there is not a single thing in this world which we can state is a fact. Nothing. We have lots of lovely theories and the like, but they do not constitute fact, only a long string of coincidences where things happened the same.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Hi natureisawesome,

Ive been reading your posts and I know a lot of people have responded but i couldnt help adding mine and I hope you'll forgive me :thumbsup:

Ill start with a short allegory I heard a while ago from a good friend :)

Imagine your in a court room, and a trial is taking place, against someone who has commited a terrible act against a loved one you know very well, and against the man accused stands a wealth of evidence, its scientific evidence, statements of accounts from countless witnesses, there is genetic evidence - everything ties in together and makes sense, and the judge is about to call to the jury for a verdict.

The wealth of evidence results in a verdict which to everyone in the courtroom seems a just punishment, to some, closer relatives to the victim, it is obviously not enough.

Yet one man from the crowd stands up and makes a protest about the sentance.

The judge being particularly open minded allows the outburst and asks the man to continue.

The man says "That man is not guilty".

To which the judge responds - "why?"

And the man simply says...

"Because I feel it in my heart".

Is that the way you want the justice system to work? Because in essence, that is what you are asking the scientifically minded people to do, when you continually ask us, to believe that the Bible, is still the infinite truth of the universe and the "word of God".




Hi Imitator,

I just read your last post and couldnt get my head around your comments about facts and theories.

You said:


Even right now, there is not a single thing in this world which we can state is a fact.

What i can interpret this as is that your saying there is always a way to dispute fact, or so called fact?

I say, if you jump off a 50 story building, when you hit the ground, your heart will stop.

There is nothing we can state as fact?

There's always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

[imitator]

Hi Imitator,

I just read your last post and couldnt get my head around your comments about facts and theories.

You said:



What i can interpret this as is that your saying there is always a way to dispute fact, or so called fact?

I say, if you jump off a 50 story building, when you hit the ground, your heart will stop.

There is nothing we can state as fact?

There's always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

No, I apologize, what I said was very broad, although being used for a very narrow aspect of it.

I do believe that there are facts out there in this crazy universe we live in. However, we have not as of yet found anything that is truely a fact. All of science is theories, all of life is theories, at best.

The problem comes from the misconception with fact and belief in alot of cases, although not neccessarily yours, just in general.

Most people believe its a fact that when they wake up tommorow morning, and go to get out of bed, that their floor will be beneath their feet. That is not a fact though, merely a belief, as there is an infinite number of possibilities that could have happened while said person was asleep to make it so that isnt true. Thats a very simplistic way of showing what we deal with in regards to facts and science.

We may currently even be in the possession of an actual fact, but we do not know it if that is the case.

I apologize for the lengthy quote that I am going to post here, but I dislike linking to my blogs and such directly, so here is something I wrote up for a debate in one of my philosophy classes about two years back. Keep in mind, I was baked as all hell when I wrote it, but its a pretty decent way of me explaining what I meant.



What would we do if we ever held true knowledge? Something that was truely irrefutable, something that would never be up for debate or interpretation, in essence the first real fact that mankind would ever have had?

All too often we tend to take for granted the world in which we live in. Sometimes, its because consistantly things seem to happen in an ordered manner; to question the "fact" every second of ones existance would leave little time for other things. We are taught that it is wholely un-intelligent and quite possibly un-sane to question if the sun will rise tommorow. It has done so for so very long that its the logical conclusion that it will do so again tommorow. And that without some sort of catacalysmic event happening, nothing could change that "fact".

But if we look at our own day to day lives, if we look into the things that happen daily around us, we would find that these catacalysmic events happen so very often that its almost unbelievable. Every time that a light bulb goes out, its because of one of these events. It worked fine yesterday, in fact it worked fine just mere seconds before. But through actions that we can not see easily, it dies. Because of a certain reaction, which caused another reaction, which in turn continued to cause reactions down a very long chain, the light bulb ceased working. Each of those reactions were random. There was no factor that could be calculated in any form of math or other science that could show the exact time that the lightbulb would cease to function.

So the question is, then, if such reactions on such a small scale, in comparison to lets say the sun, are not exactly understood and can not be defined and predicted, wouldnt that mean that the science is not exact? That while we may understand the concept, we do not have any facts, just thoughts and ideas that seem to fit in accordance to the subject?

What would a fact mean to us? With even one true, actual fact, that was never unpredictable, that no matter what the scale it was applied to, one could calculate exactly when something would happen, how, and all the other details, we would then be able to find facts for everything else in existance. This is true because, once we fully understand something, anything, we can apply it to anything else, by simply breaking down the truth to the smallest factor. In essence, knowing the fact of why the lightbulb goes out, and being able to say for certain when any lightbulb will go out, and never being wrong, gives you the starting block. From there, since you have the equation or whatever to prove these things, you can go deep as you wish, and look at all the levels of this truth. And when you reach the deepest darkest level of the truth, for example lets say down to the atom's and their actions and reactions, you can then begin to understand everythign else at that level. Because for this thing to be a truth, certain things must react exactly the same towards it. And for those things to react exactly the same to the truth, other things must react exactly the same. So on and so forth, until you understand the workings of everything because they must all react in a certain way for this truth to be true.

The problem is, we dont have any truth's. We dont have any actual facts. The world that we percieve, the world that we believe we live in, is so full of randomness, that in order to stay "sane" or to make any sense of it all, we have to try to make as much as we can into "facts and truths". Instead of saying, the sun might rise tommorow, we state that it will. The common man is never given any reason to assume otherwise. But for whatever reason, maybe the sun's hypothetical lightbulb just goes out. We have no way of knowing when it will happen, or why, although we have idea's and assumptions in regards to the matter. At this very moment as I write this, the sun could no longer exist, and we wouldnt know for some time to come. Yet assuming the sun has already gone out, people would wake up tommorow and say that the sun rose. And they would tell you matter of factly that it will rise again tommorow. What would they say when the time finally came that it was apparent that the sun wasnt going to "rise again tommorow morning"? How would they react when one of their basic "facts" was no longer there?

One of the interesting things about the pursuit of knowledge, the search for truths, is that for every one answer you may find, it will ultimately leave you with two questions in its place. Every scientific theory that has been adopted as truth and fact, has at some later period of time, been proven to be innacurate, or completely untrue. Something wasnt correct about it, although it was adopted as fact and only later on noticed to not be true. And everyone who adopted these items as fact, were living in a lie. And every one of them willingly doing so. Ignorance isnt an excuse for the criminal, and nor is it for the scientist or the common man. Just because certain things werent known when you came to your conclusion doesnt mean that you arent at fault for believing in an untrue conclusion. You are entirely at fault, because if you had looked, you would have seen it to be false. Sometimes its very simple to look and see that its false, other times its so deeply hidden that at times it seems impossible that it could not be true. But without fail eventually every single "truth" is looked at hard enough that someone sees the "crack in the armor". And it is because of the failures of everyone before that person that the crack was not noticed beforehand. You can never have looked hard enough if you havent found the fault in something. Using the logic discussed earlier, it is very probable that anything could happen.

This would leave us in a complete state of chaos though. If anything can happen at any time, then that would be a textbook case of a chaos state. To help us with this, and to help us live in this chaos state, we have science. When we look at the developments of science not as facts, but as explinations and rationalizations of occurances that have a high probability of occuring again, it gives us the ability to hold onto the slippery slope we are perched on. If we look at the sun rising tommorow as highly probable because of "these reasonings", we can give both some order to our world and still not willingly be living in a state of falsehood.

Note that even though we have this science to help us live day to day, it doesnt change the fact that we do live amoungst chaos. It is easier for us to cover chaos and randomness with logic and sureity, it allows us to live easier. When we dont have to spend every second questioning something, or wondering what or when something will happen, things are easier. Over time though, if one were to strip away the logic and sureity, or better yet introduce someone into this world without ever giving them this logic and sureity, that person would have little problem living easily. It is through our own constructs, over an incredibly lengthy period of time, that we put ourselves in a position that we can not handle living in a world of uncertainty. We have grown accustomed to our sureity, and cant quite comprehend how to live without it.

Ironically, it is because of this chaos, or rather through it, that I am discussing this topic to begin with. There was no equation to prove when I would think about this, or what I would say and when. Logic and sureity can not apply to some things and not others. You cant have object A which is logical and essentially a truth or fact, sitting next to object B which has no logic or sureity. In order for object A to exist, everything around it must be a truth and logical as well. It must all be proven, must always act the same, or else the entire foundation of object A being a truth and logical is lost. Everything must react the same every time so that object A can be logical and proven without any randomness. If one object can react in any way that can not be pinpoint predicted, then the entire truth is lost.

Now science likes to avoid this dilemma of absolutes. In such cases, clauses are added. "Well, if object B doesnt act the way we use right now to predict object A, it is possible for it to act another way and still acheive the same results." If I state that this Sunkist in my cup will never leave the cup, you can immediately see the problem. Sure the Sunkist in a perfect sitaution would never leave that cup, but there are external factors that can modify and change the entire thing. If gravity changes, the liquid might leave the cup, or if some force colides with the cup and causes it to move in such a fashion that the liquid sloshes out, then what I said above would not be true. The Sunkist indeed could leave the cup. And this admittedly makes sense. And one could even go so far as to come up with equations to show definitively what would happen with each situation. The problem is, what about something that changes the above mentioned things that could cause the alteration of the fact of the Sunkist never leaving the cup.

True enough though, each of these things that could change the factors that would cause the Sunkist to have a means of leaving the cup and its truth, can be definitively equated. And no matter how far down the line you go, you could come up with equations that explain everything needed to show how the fact of the Sunkist never leaving the cup could be altered, but still be true in the end. Seems like my entire thought process is debunked then, no?

No indeed, actually. Because even with all these equations, you cant prove with fact when these "somethings" could alter the truth of the Sunkist leaving the cup. You can show me the logic behind what happened after the fact, and what caused it, but you could not tell me ahead of time that it was going to happen, without using other factors to give you hints. And then you must look at these other hint factors, and be able to tell me ahead of time about those, and so on and so forth. So, even though we know the almost certain "why and how", we cant come even close to the certainty with the "when". And without the "when", you dont have a sound arguement.

Look at it this way. Although we can show with science the reactions and actions that take place as I type on this keyboard, no amount of science can show ahead of time what it is I am going to type, when I am going to type it, or why. In this sense, science is explaining things, but only in a retroactive manner. And now we sit at our catch 22. Science appears to be able to explain things in a retroactive manner, IE after the fact. And it always seems to be correct in some manner. In example, our lightbulb. After it goes out, we can examine it and declare what the cause of death was. We then declare what we found to be the truth, and the cause of the death of the lightbulb.

But for something to be correct, for something to be "fact" or a "truth", everything around it must be a truth as well. And if we held a truth, as talked about above, then we would essentially know that everything else in this existance is a "truth" or "fact" for the reasons stated above. But if this is true, for the science to be correct, it must be a fact or a truth. And if it was a truth or fact, then that means that it would always act in a certain manner, and that everything, and I do mean everything else is the same. If we take all of this to be true, then in order for us to be correct 100% of the time about the death of the lightbulb, we would need to be able to be 100% correct about the exact time of death. In all situations too. Although we can use external forces of our own direction and control to force a death of the lightbulb, which would allow us to be 100% correct about the time of death, we must also be able to predict it in perfect situations where nothing acts "out of optimum conditions", and all points in between.

So, if we can prove and claim it fact on how the lightbulb died, then we should be able to show when it will die. Also, a whole different can of worms becomes apparent. Taking our current situation and assuming that it is all true and fact, there would be no distinction between someone forcing the death of the lightbulb and the optimum conditions set. There is no inbetween. They would be one and the same, since the action would already have been predicted and known as a fact or truth. There never was a less then optimum condition, there was never any other choice or option other then the one that happened. Thats right, predestination would be a "fact" if one were to believe that there were indeed "facts".


Hope that better explains what I meant, if not, let me know, and Ill see if I cant explain it better.

[natureisawesome]

h.b. said:



So since the Bible has some truth that can be verified, the rest of it must be true? If that were the case, anytime a liar wanted to deceive someone, all they have to do is tell mostly truth, which makes the rest of their statements are believable, no matter how absurd. I do not believe in talking donkeys. I see little reason to take a book with talking donkeys as fact.


You don't need to see a miracle to recognize God's existence. You don't have to see a miracle to recognize God's nature. If you did, then god definitely would show you a miracle. Since you don't need to be shown a miracle, and it's required that man shall live by faith then you're excuseless and you're only testing God. The evidence to recognize God isn't something real hard to grasp. It's everywhere and so plain and obvious that it's insulting to ask to see a miracle. People tell themselves they can't see it and they don't. They choose to have no faith.

Do you know that in old times, that the type of stories and genealogies in the bible were read aloud in in the synagogue in Israel? It was also told by word of mouth, every thing was in those days and not just in Israel either. They had all this stuff memorized in their head and they were trained to remember lots of stuff like stories and genealogies and history of wars and everything else because hardly anyone read or wrote. So all the time there were people who were hearing this written history and things and if it was wrong, then lots of people would be saying hey that's wrong.

All of the books of the bible were written by leaders and scribes and people well known about and very visible and information would be much more widely available. For instance the books of chronicles or the books of kings were from the royal palace itself, and would be widely circulated. Especially because another one of scribes jobs was to make copies of existing documents.

With the information there is to know about God, it's enough to have faith. You don't need the bible to know there's the all loving God in the bible. And why aren't you as suspicious about all history? Do you know there wasn't a talking donkey? I know I can't prove something i can't show you, but at the same time you have no way of knowing and the possibility still lies open there could be one in the past. So take care to recognize your bias.


I *have* to? What happens if I attempt to and find nothing?

With honestly, humility and faith that won't happen.



I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence from the heart", I will assume it means Values and beliefs. Obviously correct me if I'm wrong in the assumption. So I look down in my heart (or use my brain, since the heart only feels in a symbolical sense) and come to the conclusion that God's version of morality is immoral to me, then I must be right, right? I mean, the evidence was right there in my heart.

Not just values and beliefs. Ultimate values. Spiritual Truth. I don't believe that our feelings are in our brains of course. I think there's a good deal to show this is true. Also, something I've noticed. Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel real deeply about somethings, like if you feel very strongly towards a girl of if you're in emotional pain it hurts right in your heart, I mean your physical heart. I find that interesting and I'm not saying the physical heart can feel, but I've thought about it and if there's a designer I think that would be the perfect place to make that connection you know? from the spiritual heart to the beating heart? we we think of the beating of the physical heart, it's very representative of what we recognize as our heart, our center of feeling and of sentient perception.


Since when do atheists believe in a "spiritual truth"? And how do they contradict themselves with humanism, assuming of course that all atheists subscribe to humanism, which of course they all don't.

According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith." Philosophically, secular humanism is naturalism. Strictly speaking secular humanism does not allow for ultimate morality but adopts a philosophy of ethical relativism. But on the other hand, who of them of them will deny that loving isn't good or helping someone who needs help is not right? Many people have different concept of what they think is the best love, but ultimately we all recognize love as something right, a higher standard that's higher than us all that we are all obligated to follow. But the material universe cannot determine moral Truth . Only sentient beings can recognize that. But then when examined they would be forced to admit that according to their belief in naturalism and evolution they cannot allow a spiritual truth. I know you might say well some people believe in God and evolution but I think that can be easily shown fallacious but the truth is leading evolutionist don't seem to like theistic evolution at all.

Logically, atheists have to provide a moral code from outside of their belief system which which can't provide any. Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.


An idea of the problem for atheists was illustrated in the famous radio debate between the Jesuit philosopher and historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston and the anti-Christian mathematical logician Bertrand Russell (www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm):

Bertrand Russell [BR]: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I donâ??t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

Frederick Copleston [FC]: Yes, but whatâ??s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

BR: I donâ??t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

FC: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

BR: By my feelings.

As Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias said in The Atheists Challenge, if Copleston werenâ??t such a gentleman, he might have asked, â??in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?â?�

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)

Here's what can happen when angry and hurt people believe there is no standard of morality, that they can make their own rules:

How to build a bomb in the public school system (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/bomb.asp)

[natureisawesome]

Fallen Icarus said:


Hi natureisawesome,

Ive been reading your posts and I know a lot of people have responded but i couldn't help adding mine and I hope you'll forgive me

Ill start with a short allegory I heard a while ago from a good friend

Imagine your in a court room, and a trial is taking place, against someone who has committed a terrible act against a loved one you know very well, and against the man accused stands a wealth of evidence, its scientific evidence, statements of accounts from countless witnesses, there is genetic evidence - everything ties in together and makes sense, and the judge is about to call to the jury for a verdict.

The wealth of evidence results in a verdict which to everyone in the courtroom seems a just punishment, to some, closer relatives to the victim, it is obviously not enough.

Yet one man from the crowd stands up and makes a protest about the sentence.

The judge being particularly open minded allows the outburst and asks the man to continue.

The man says "That man is not guilty".

To which the judge responds - "why?"

And the man simply says...

"Because I feel it in my heart".

Is that the way you want the justice system to work? Because in essence, that is what you are asking the scientifically minded people to do, when you continually ask us, to believe that the Bible, is still the infinite truth of the universe and the "word of God".

But like I said before evidence that is morality and spiritual truth are just as valid if not more so, and this includes atheists. What's wright or wrong? To an atheist something is right because he feels so. He believes that his sense of morality can not be recognition of any spiritual Truth because there is no God. But for a theist, it so much more it's the solid ground of spiritual truth. You wrote that and I though immediately afterwords how that is self-defeatist and you revealed the very weakness of you tried to accuse me of in your argument. Furthermore, recognition of spiritual Truth does not deny evidence in the material world.In fact, one of the main ways of determining the validity of any religion is to compare it to what we observe in the natural world and see if they fit or not.


Hi Imitator,

I just read your last post and couldn't get my head around your comments about facts and theories.

You said:


Quote:
Even right now, there is not a single thing in this world which we can state is a fact.

What i can interpret this as is that your saying there is always a way to dispute fact, or so called fact?

I say, if you jump off a 50 story building, when you hit the ground, your heart will stop.

There is nothing we can state as fact?

There's always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

I've shown ample evidence of facts. Rock solid facts. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't make it not a fact. You are. I am. We are. Does anyone question this? How much closer can a think get for you to recognize it's validity? To deny your existence and the outside world is to live in hypocrisy because you fall upon these same axioms every day.

imitator said:


There was no factor that could be calculated in any form of math or other science that could show the exact time that the lightbulb would cease to function.

That's simply not true.



What would a fact mean to us? With even one true, actual fact, that was never unpredictable, that no matter what the scale it was applied to, one could calculate exactly when something would happen, how, and all the other details, we would then be able to find facts for everything else in existence.

You are thinking. Deny it? You can't. You can't deny yourself.


Because for this thing to be a truth, certain things must react exactly the same towards it. And for those things to react exactly the same to the truth, other things must react exactly the same. So on and so forth, until you understand the workings of everything because they must all react in a certain way for this truth to be true.

Huh??


At this very moment as I write this, the sun could no longer exist, and we wouldn't know for some time to come.

How do you have any way of knowing that the sun 'could' no longer exist? You don't know it can do anything other that what you know it to do by the observation by which you know it. There is no reason to believe or suggest that it 'could' no longer exist. Your imagination does not count. From all we know and observe in the outside world, and the science thereof the sun will exist. And nothing stands to contradict this.



Every scientific theory that has been adopted as truth and fact, has at some later period of time, been proven to be inaccurate, or completely untrue.

absolutely false


Just because certain things weren't known when you came to your conclusion doesn't mean that you aren't at fault for believing in an untrue conclusion. You are entirely at fault, because if you had looked, you would have seen it to be false.

......



But without fail eventually every single "truth" is looked at hard enough that someone sees the "crack in the armor".

every single one eh?


Using the logic discussed earlier, it is very probable that anything could happen.

How do you know this? You say that facts cannot be identified but then say anything can happen as a fact. How do you know? Wouldn't you rather go with the evidence you do have rather than the evidence you don't???


This would leave us in a complete state of chaos though. If anything can happen at any time, then that would be a textbook case of a chaos state.

No basis for this either.


When we look at the developments of science not as facts, but as explanations and rationalizations of occurrences that have a high probability of occurring again

How do you know?

" It is easier for us to cover chaos and randomness with logic and surety, it allows us to live easier. .......Over time though, if one were to strip away the logic "

You mean the logic you used to write this?


Logic and sureity can not apply to some things and not others.

really...


If one object can react in any way that can not be pinpoint predicted, then the entire truth is lost.

That's not true.

I managed to read all of it. I finally made it. I don't feel the need to answer your logic and I seriously think you were smoking too much wed on top of other things.

You don't seem to recognize that no matter how close your perception of another thing is it's in the end up to you to accept it's existence (yes it does require willpower). In the end, no matter how much you know it comes down to being reasonable. The only other way is to be all knowing, to know everything that exists or doesn't.

Your mind is all you have. Nomatter which direction you turn, to accept reality or to deny it you still use your perception and judgment skills nomatter where you turn. You have to accept reality. You don't have any other choice.

from something I posted a while ago:


As far as understanding anything goes, human logic is all we have. Human understanding and reasoning. That's it. If you want to scrutinize our understanding of infinity, then you have to scrutinize our entire thinking process, and well and there's really no way to do that since the only thinking and feeling capabilities you would use to scrutinize your thinking and feeling capabilities are the ones you already have, and those would be in question. And even if you had back up thinking and feeling capabilities, these would necessarily come under question as well. You would come to a dead end and very likely turn to nihilism, but really this can't even be a sure thing for you since your judgment skills you used to turn to nihilism could be faulty
too. Things really just go downhill from there but ultimately you must either face or deny yourself.

Whether you choose to deny yourself or accept your own existence, either way proves that someone or something made the choice to do it - you. Therefore since you do exist, you can be absolutely sure that this much of your judgment skills is practical. You may now proceed to gain your own trust of reality. If you need help doing this I can help you.

If you don't like or trust having personal convictions or having value judgment skills then too bad, there's nothing you can do about it. It's built into you and the only thing you can do if you don't like it or trust it is to tell yourself it's all in your head and live in hypocrisy by using those judgment skills in your day to day life.

Or you can be reasonable and just accept that it is reasonable and practical and wonder how such magnificent sentient manifestations such as love, virtue,courage, beauty,compassion, patience, charity, honesty etc. could be manifested by anything but another sentient being.


I understand that you don't know exactly exactly what's going to happen in the future. But the evidence we have shows that the universe is not inherently chaotic and all signs show that it will continue to do so. That's evidence. The way you use the word fact you render it utterly meaningless, and necessarily because facts can't only be recognized by a sentient being. You choose to deny them and you fall deeper trying to evade a reality that cannot be evaded.

The fact is you are thinking and you exist and the same perceiption you perceive yuor own existance you also observe the outside world and everything in it according to human reasoning which cannot be evaded the universe and things in it are just as real as you.

[Hardcore Newbie]

You don't need to see a miracle to recognize God's existence. You don't have to see a miracle to recognize God's nature. If you did, then god definitely would show you a miracle. Since you don't need to be shown a miracle, and it's required that man shall live by faith then you're excuseless and you're only testing God. The evidence to recognize God isn't something real hard to grasp. It's everywhere and so plain and obvious that it's insulting to ask to see a miracle. People tell themselves they can't see it and they don't. They choose to have no faith.
What's so insulting about wanting to see a miracle? I can say the exact opposite that you just said, and I'd be just as right. You're stating opinions. Besides, you say god is all powerful, so it literally takes *nothing* for him to show me. I've already an open invitation to any God, god, deity or anything of the like to have a conversation with me. No takers so far (besides Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course).


With the information there is to know about God, it's enough to have faith. You don't need the bible to know there's the all loving God in the bible. And why aren't you as suspicious about all history? Do you know there wasn't a talking donkey? I know I can't prove something i can't show you, but at the same time you have no way of knowing and the possibility still lies open there could be one in the past. So take care to recognize your bias.Do I know there wasn't a talking donkey? No, of course not, it's impossible to prove that something DIDN'T HAPPEN. I realize that nearly anything is possible (which I state clearly and often). if I'm biased for living in reality and realize the possibility of a talking donkey is highly unlikely, then call me bias.

I'll ask you a few questions about a talking donkey. Do you believe that a donkey has ever spoken? And if so, why aren't you be suspicious? If you're not suspicious, would you believe me if I told you that my dog told me that god doesn't exist?

I'm not suspicious of most history because unlike a talking donkey, it's.... what's the word.... believable. The only other books I've read with talking animals were called fairy tales.




Not just values and beliefs. Ultimate values. Spiritual Truth. I don't believe that our feelings are in our brains of course. I think there's a good deal to show this is true. Also, something I've noticed. Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel real deeply about somethings, like if you feel very strongly towards a girl of if you're in emotional pain it hurts right in your heart, I mean your physical heart.Nope. I get mine in the gut. More assumptions.


I find that interesting and I'm not saying the physical heart can feel, but I've thought about it and if there's a designer I think that would be the perfect place to make that connection you know? from the spiritual heart to the beating heart? we we think of the beating of the physical heart, it's very representative of what we recognize as our heart, our center of feeling and of sentient perception. All subjective. I'd say the perfect places for love would be in the genitals or the fingers. It's just my view of the world.


According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. The Humanist Manifestos declare:I don't care what the definition of humanism is. You stated that atheists subscribe to humanism. A very blanket statement used so that you can further your points.


Logically, atheists have to provide a moral code from outside of their belief system which which can't provide any. Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.
Logically, atheists (or anybody, really) don't *have* to do anything. Each person is an individual. What does richard dawkins have to do with anyone else as a person? he's a famous atheist? Big deal, he doesn't speak for every atheist on the planet.

Also, some people may be immoral by my standard, but not by their own. So *logically*, nobody on the face of the earth is required to provide their moral code.



Here's what can happen when angry and hurt people believe there is no standard of morality, that they can make their own rules:I could throw up a link to the spanish inquisition and use that of my basis to describe anyone who is religious anyone believes in a higher power, and what they do when they think their morality is being guided by a higher power. it serves no purpose.

[jamstigator]

'Faith' is just a nicer word for 'assume'. If you have faith in something for which there is no evidence (e.g., something that can be replicated by others and produces consistent results), then you are just assuming that what you've been told (or what you feel) is the truth. Truth should never be assumed. Question everything, and demand evidence. This is how we stopped thinking that God makes meteor storms to punish the wicked or that women who can swim must be witches.

250 years ago, if they threw you in the river and you *didn't* drown, they burned you, because they had faith that this was God's will, to burn witches, and they had faith that you *were* a witch if you didn't drown, thus making burning the skin from your bones the 'right' and 'moral' thing to do. These are the roads down which faith takes people. Much of the world has outgrown such superstitious nonsense, but it is thriving in the U.S.

Faith in the Islamic model of life and of the afterlife is what drives virtually all the suicide bombings in the world today. They have faith that *their* beliefs are right and yours are wrong. You have faith that they're wrong and you're right. If everyone would just stop with the assumptions and start asking for demonstrable proof, violence would go way way down.

[natureisawesome]

I've noticed that throughout this whole thread no one has even come to mentioning the scriptural prophecies In the original posrt. I'd be interested to hear thoughts on that.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I predicted that you would post again. It's not a prophecy. Even Sylvia Browne gets things right. The best way to do it is to make hundreds of predictions and a few will probably be right.

[jamstigator]

Many of the prophecies you listed seem to depend on the original 69 seven's prophecy. Numerical prophecies are notoriously easy to manipulate after the fact. If it doesn't work with days, try weeks. If it doesn't work with weeks, try months. If it doesn't work for months, try years. If it doesn't work with years try decades, or multiples of sevens of years, and on and on and on. Even the starting date could easily be readjusted, as there have been attempts to 'rebuild Jerusalem' in *recent* times. Which would push the Messiah date up into the future rather than in the past. With numbers, if you look for patterns, you will find them, even if they aren't really patterns at all. (Ever see the movie Pi? If not, it's worth watching, lots of number-related religiousy stuff.)

As for many (if not all) of the other prophecies, they aren't resolved yet. Was THE Jesus the one that was found in that tomb recently? If so, then perhaps we'll be able to analyze that DNA at some point and see if his mother is there, perhaps who his real father was, whether that was his wife and son also buried there, etc. If any of that proves to be true, that will pretty much invalidate much of the Christian belief system. Of course, many (probably most) Christians will go into denial at that point and cling to their traditional beliefs like a drowning man does a life preserver, which would be interesting to watch.

[imitator]

That's simply not true.

Since it worked for you so well, prove it. Wait, you cant? Then I guess I am right, no?

There exists no method to determine the exact period of time at which the lightbulb will die. None. Now sure, in the future, we might find a way, but that doesnt make my statement wrong in any way.



You are thinking. Deny it? You can't. You can't deny yourself.

One of the more simplistic philosophical exercises, but a good one none the less. The problem is, the entire "I think, therefore I am" arguement fails to work if you introduce the Dreamer aspect. If we are all part of someones dream, and we didnt actually know it, then we could actually debunk the "I think, therefore I am" line of logic, because your thinking is actually not you thinking, but part of someones dream that they are creating.


Huh??

It goes like this. A truth is a truth is a truth. It is true no matter the circumstances, no matter who views it, it is true. Truth/Facts are independant of any one persons reality, they exist, by themselves, and need not anyone to be currently looking at it to exist. They are the same no matter who views them, assuming the person knows what they are looking at. Now if a truth/fact is always true no matter what, if you start breaking down the truth into more and more basic truths, eventually you will find yourself at a level where you can begin to use said truth to prove other truths, by causing interactions with the original truth. That truth/fact is always the same no matter what, so any interactions you cause will have a similar pattern of always happening in them as well. Follow me?


How do you have any way of knowing that the sun 'could' no longer exist? You don't know it can do anything other that what you know it to do by the observation by which you know it. There is no reason to believe or suggest that it 'could' no longer exist. Your imagination does not count. From all we know and observe in the outside world, and the science thereof the sun will exist. And nothing stands to contradict this.

Do believe you are making my point for me there. Or part of it at least.

I dont know if the sun exists at the moment. I know that it could no longer exist, based on the theories we have in science currently. But it is impossible for me to know its actual current existance, at this exact moment, without being right next to the actual sun. If the sun was destroyed this very minute, we wouldnt know about it for a period of time. But before that period of time came up, we would all assume that the sun was still working like it always had, and everything was ok. But, it wasnt, there was no more sun, even though everyone would tell you its a fact that the sun still exists.


absolutely false

Prove it. Show me an example. Show me one scientific theory that was never based on any other theory that ended up being false or modified in any way shape or form, and that hasnt itself been modified in any way shape or form.


......

With the sun example, every single person is at fault who continued to assume the sun was perfectly fine, when it wasnt. You cant claim ignorance as an excuse, the answer was there, if you looked deep and hard enough. But once again, convienence wins out on situations like this, because its such a pain in the ass to do constantly, and the chances of seeing something different are slim, so its considered useless. But that doesnt change that the answers were there for anyone to see if they looked hard enough, they were just too lazy to do so.


every single one eh?

Show me a single assumed truth, ie something that was a theory that everyone considered a fact/truth, that hasnt at some point been modified or shown to be incorrect, or wasnt based on a theory that hasnt at some point been modified or shown to be incorrect in any way. Im betting you wont find anything, because as time goes on, and we as a species learn more, we also learn just how little we knew before, and how incorrect we were.


How do you know this? You say that facts cannot be identified but then say anything can happen as a fact. How do you know? Wouldn't you rather go with the evidence you do have rather than the evidence you don't???

Probable. PROBABLE. Prob-able. That is, literally, the key word in what I said. I never said it WOULD, I never said it was a FACT, I said it was probable.

Also, facts can be identified, and I dont recall ever stating they couldnt. I said we dont have any facts that we know about currently, although its possible that we are in possession of a truth, and just havent realized it yet. Facts exist, or at least I believe that they do... we just havent found any yet.


No basis for this either.

In a reality where anything could happen at any time, randomly, that would be a text book case of a chaos state.




This is seriously almost like comic relief. You are making my point. How do YOU know that it isnt like that? You dont, but unlike myself, you assume that it is a fact that it always happens like that, but you dont know if it does. I am arguing that we dont know that it is a fact, and on the same hand you are arguing with me saying how do you know its not a fact. If it was a fact, there wouldnt be any question, it would just be a fact.

[quote]" It is easier for us to cover chaos and randomness with logic and surety, it allows us to live easier. .......Over time though, if one were to strip away the logic "

You mean the logic you used to write this?

You caught me. I use logic and reasoning in day to day life. I imagine if you look around, you might find that others use it to. Shocking, I know, but bear with me here.

And yet again, it sounds like you are trying to help me here, not argue against me. You pointed out that I use logic to try to make chaos and randomness easier to deal with/understand in a sense, which is exactly what I am saying. People use logic and surety to make randomness and chaos easier to deal with and less complicated in general.


really...

I do believe it was you, and I apologize if I mixed you up with someone else, that said that the supernatural couldnt exist along side the natural, because of some reasoning involving God. If something is above the laws that govern our universe, if it is not logical, then it would have to belong to something similar, if not, the group of things known as supernatural. Now I would have to ask, how can you question what I said, and still claim that the supernatural cant exist. It has to be one or the other, as far as I can see.


That's not true.

I am not sure if you responded to just the clipped quote from that section I wrote or not, but when put into full context, in its entirety, it is very true.

I was stating that you cant have a truth, if you can not pinpoint every last thing about it and be able to explain all of it in some sort of equation or something similar. If you cant state how its going to react, to anything, all the time, with 100% certainty and no chance for it to ever happen any differently, then its not a fact, is it?


I managed to read all of it. I finally made it. I don't feel the need to answer your logic and I seriously think you were smoking too much wed on top of other things.

Ill ignore the half cop-out excuse to avoid actually discussing at all what I said, and the fact that throughout everything you said in response, you never did anything but make blanket claims with nothing behind them... Wait, no, I wont. Thats a load of crap, and you darn well know it. If you had no intention of answering my logic, or providing anything to back up your statements in response to what I said, then why bother posting? To make yourself feel better?


You don't seem to recognize that no matter how close your perception of another thing is it's in the end up to you to accept it's existence (yes it does require willpower). In the end, no matter how much you know it comes down to being reasonable. The only other way is to be all knowing, to know everything that exists or doesn't.

Do believe that is what they call the classic search of knowledge that man has been doing since our existance. The search to understand everything, be able to explain everything. Sure, not everyone has it, but as a species, we have advanced so far because of it, and will continue to advance as long as we continue to search.

You can choose to accept somethings existance or to not to, but in the end, that doesnt affect its actual existance one bit. If something truely exists, it exists outside of your perception, and is independant of you. Such as, since we are talking about it, truths and facts. They exist independant of you, and wether you choose to accept their existance or not, it doesnt affect their actual existance.

If it only exists for yourself, if it is dependant entirely on yourself, and nothing else, then how do you show anyone else that it exists? And if you cant show anyone else, and no one else can see it, does it truely exist? Before you give that question a blanket yes statement, ask yourself, can you prove to anyone, and everyone, of its existance? If not, then you dont have proof that it exists, you have a strong belief and conviction based on personal perception.


Your mind is all you have. Nomatter which direction you turn, to accept reality or to deny it you still use your perception and judgment skills nomatter where you turn. You have to accept reality. You don't have any other choice.

But my reality is different then yours, and yours is different then his, and his is different then hers. So who's do I accept?

And once again, my entire reality, my entire thought process and everything I do, think, and percieve, could easily be a part of some great beings dream. The Dreamer theory is a wonderful thing at debunking people who use the "reality is a fact" arguement. Everything is foiled by the Dreamer theory, granted, but it still proves the point.


I understand that you don't know exactly exactly what's going to happen in the future. But the evidence we have shows that the universe is not inherently chaotic and all signs show that it will continue to do so. That's evidence.

No, thats actually not evidence. And where is your facts? Your absolute proof? I mean, if the universe is not inherently chaotic, and it will continue to be as such(it would have to, or else it would have always been chaotic), then surely there must be an easily recognizable and provable fact amoungst it? If it is not chaos, then its order, and order follows rules, and rules are independant of people and perception, and should be definable in things such as or similar to equations. And those equations would indeed be facts, as they would always be that way, with no chance for anything to ever deviate.


The way you use the word fact you render it utterly meaningless, and necessarily because facts can't only be recognized by a sentient being. You choose to deny them and you fall deeper trying to evade a reality that cannot be evaded.

The way you, and most of this population uses the word fact, you render it meaningless, and ruin the entire idea of a fact.

A fact isnt a belief, a fact isnt a perception, a fact is a fact is a fact. Its always has been, currently is, and always will be the same. Its independant of everything, and if it isnt actually a fact in one situation or another, then it a fact at all.

Too much these days people use the word fact and truth to describe things that happen in life for which we only have theories, no facts. Science has never found a fact, and you wont find any reputable scientist who will tell you otherwise.

A fact/truth will be the same wether I choose to acknowledge it or not, and me not acknowledging it doesnt mean it cant affect me either. A fact/truth does what it does, without any change, and is independant of everything else but itself. I know I keep repeating that, but its for a reason.


The fact is you are thinking and you exist and the same perceiption you perceive yuor own existance you also observe the outside world and everything in it according to human reasoning which cannot be evaded the universe and things in it are just as real as you.

Do I exist? Couldnt I be a part of a dream you are having, or another person is having of us?

There is no proof that I exist. Its easier though, for everyone to assume they exist in a permanent reality that is independant of themselves and others, but there is no concrete proof. There is some nearly irontight theories, for certain, but no proof. Because, honestly, how would you prove that you werent a part of some greater beings dream? Until that can be proven or disproven, there is no way to know for certain. Hence, its not a fact that I exist. Its a strong theory, and a personal belief of my own, but it is not a fact sir. And you have shown that you have failed utterly in understanding what a fact really is. ... the irony.

[imitator]

As for many (if not all) of the other prophecies, they aren't resolved yet. Was THE Jesus the one that was found in that tomb recently? If so, then perhaps we'll be able to analyze that DNA at some point and see if his mother is there, perhaps who his real father was, whether that was his wife and son also buried there, etc. If any of that proves to be true, that will pretty much invalidate much of the Christian belief system. Of course, many (probably most) Christians will go into denial at that point and cling to their traditional beliefs like a drowning man does a life preserver, which would be interesting to watch.

Actually, I would guess the line of logic would be that it was the Devil's work to try to confuse believers. It seems to be the standard when something gets close to being proven utterly wrong in regards to the faith.

Granted not everyone of the religion will believe or use that line of logic. I would imagine it would only be the truely extreme... I think the average believer would be shaken, but wouldnt let it affect how they chose to live their lives before, becuase that is what was important... the lessons it taught on how to live a good life. But who knows, its nigh impossible to predict how a massive group of people would react to a hypothetical situation such as that.

[Delta9 UK]

And guess where the story of horus originated from.

Babylon. I know what I'm talking about.

Nope, they BOTH more likely originated from a single source.

Tammuz and Osiris were both worshipped and based on a much older god.

I don't think the Babylonian Tammuz was the influence for Osiris/Horus - they were around at the same time - about 5000 years ago.

That would make you an old-world creationist then :thumbsup:

[natureisawesome]

Nope, they BOTH more likely originated from a single source.

Tammuz and Osiris were both worshipped and based on a much older god.

I don't think the Babylonian Tammuz was the influence for Osiris/Horus - they were around at the same time - about 5000 years ago.

That would make you an old-world creationist then :thumbsup:

What much older God? Tammuz aka ninus who's name literally signifies "the son" was part of the mother godess religion as a child in her mothers arms. Also known as "the lamented one" (for reasons far removed from any Christian theme) he was the type for other gods osirus, bachus etc.

The existence of the babylonian mystery religion and how it spread to where it is today fulfills biblical prophecy and is testimony to the truth of God's word.

p.s. - of course they were from around the same period.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator, I'm not going to answer all of that. I don't have time for that. I already tried to explain it the best I can. I will save my arguements for someone more reasonable. You state your logic , and the built in process of logical deduction in your mind as factual but then you say you cannot know for sure if you in fact exist. If you can trust your mind to come to any conclusion correctly, why don't you trust your own mind to recognise your existence. I'll say it again, no matter how close you perceive something, you can always deny it. You can always have doubt. Why don't you just accept what's reasonable since you can't escape reality. Let me ask you this : how would you know a fact is a fact? What faculty of perception and observation would count as valid to recognise a fact? Unless you are eternal, there is no "string of observations" that can validate each other as absolute facts, that is they exist as they are. They are only a string of observations. A fact is an idea that can only be recognised by the perception. It depends on you.

You say there IS a possibility for such and such. That's saying, it's a fact this this can possible happen. You contradict yourself. You say we don't know anything for a fact but then you say as a fact such and such is a possibility. I know based on the evidence available that the sun will rise towarrow. Everything we know about the natural world shows that to hold true. And the evidence we have shows that we do not live in a world of chaos.

what evidence do you have to show that we may not exist?Or that a possibility that the world is not real?

All logic is built upon axioms. My axiom I know from things I observe. Yours is built on an axiom as well. That your mind is a valid tool to make deductions. But your axiom for the possibility that we may not exist is based upon nonexistent evidence.

It's only your belief. blind faith. Isn't that ironic.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Imitator, I'm not going to answer all of that. I don't have time for that. What happened to wanting to save our souls? what was the point in posting in the first place?

[natureisawesome]

h.b. ,

I want to save everyone's soul. Yes that's why I posted this thread. But that argument isn't going anywhere. How come nobody asks me questions more about Jesus. If God exists, don't you ever wonder or care what he's like? Don't you care whether he loves you or not? I want to tell you something very important.

knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.


Good night.

[Staurm]

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.

Complexity is disorder. Order is death. Life exists in the balance between the two.


When you say dissapative structures do you mean things like ice? I've alreadly touched on that before in this thread too if that's what you mean. (#35)

No. Ice is a static solid structure. Dissipative structures require liquid.

Sorry I don't have time to reply further today, I suggest you check out the text I referenced previously.

[Foskers]

Ahhh...nothing better to stir up controversy and anger than a religious post on a board full of "I don't give a fucks"...
Me being one of them...
I have no time for religion or god. Ever since the age of 8 I've been FORCED to go to church due to some bullshit scripture stating "As for me and my house, we will serve the lord."
Yet the reason god gives us the choice between heaven and hell is because he loves us and wants us to have that freedom. WHY exactly isn't that same thought applied to my having to go to church? You tell me.
I got no problems with religion and church and god and shit...but when people try to force it on me...I get pissed. Lol...
DO NOT think that that last sentence was aimed at you because I know it was my own choice to view this thread...I just wanted to put forth my ideas and beliefs the same as you.
Besides...the bible teaches that you should obey gods law first...then the law of the land. Smoking marijuana is illegal. Your breaking a law of the land. And in doing so...breaking gods law. Therefore you are sinning...excuse?

[Hardcore Newbie]

h.b. ,

I want to save everyone's soul. Yes that's why I posted this thread. But that argument isn't going anywhere. How come nobody asks me questions more about Jesus. If God exists, don't you ever wonder or care what he's like? Don't you care whether he loves you or not? I want to tell you something very important.

knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.


Good night.Nobody asks questions about jesus because most of us know enough about the guy to not ask.

Love builds up, but nike airs PUMP up :D

[Iambreathingin]

I'm sorry I just can't stay away from this...

"Ask me more about Jesus, I want to tell you somthing important"

So you basiclly ask people to ask you questions, but you're upset that people ask about the very existance of God, and not about what political opions jesus had?

The Bible is the WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

Word_of_Man.

[imitator]

Imitator, I'm not going to answer all of that. I don't have time for that. I already tried to explain it the best I can. I will save my arguements for someone more reasonable. You state your logic , and the built in process of logical deduction in your mind as factual but then you say you cannot know for sure if you in fact exist. If you can trust your mind to come to any conclusion correctly, why don't you trust your own mind to recognise your existence. I'll say it again, no matter how close you perceive something, you can always deny it. You can always have doubt. Why don't you just accept what's reasonable since you can't escape reality. Let me ask you this : how would you know a fact is a fact? What faculty of perception and observation would count as valid to recognise a fact? Unless you are eternal, there is no "string of observations" that can validate each other as absolute facts, that is they exist as they are. They are only a string of observations. A fact is an idea that can only be recognised by the perception. It depends on you.

You say there IS a possibility for such and such. That's saying, it's a fact this this can possible happen. You contradict yourself. You say we don't know anything for a fact but then you say as a fact such and such is a possibility. I know based on the evidence available that the sun will rise towarrow. Everything we know about the natural world shows that to hold true. And the evidence we have shows that we do not live in a world of chaos.

what evidence do you have to show that we may not exist?Or that a possibility that the world is not real?

All logic is built upon axioms. My axiom I know from things I observe. Yours is built on an axiom as well. That your mind is a valid tool to make deductions. But your axiom for the possibility that we may not exist is based upon nonexistent evidence.

It's only your belief. blind faith. Isn't that ironic.

If you are going to use insults, and call me unreasonable and the like, then like you I will not waste my time speaking with you anymore.

Its obvious you werent looking for a discussion, you just wanted to state your beliefs and give the illusion that you wanted to listen and discuss things with others.

I come to these posts for the discussions, and to learn more about other posters, and see things from a different point of view. Even in this post I was able to gain a bit that I didnt know before. If you arent even willing to hold a discussion, then thank you for the bit of time you shared, and Ill note not to worry about attempting any sort of discussion with you again.

As a note though, its not very consistant to state that you will save your arguements for someone more reasonable, and then begin to argue against my views and post anyways.

[imitator]

I'm sorry I just can't stay away from this...

"Ask me more about Jesus, I want to tell you somthing important"

So you basiclly ask people to ask you questions, but you're upset that people ask about the very existance of God, and not about what political opions jesus had?

The Bible is the WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

WORD OF MAN

Word_of_Man.

The most important thing for me about jesus can be shared in a poem/song...


Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, cause he always puts Skippy in my lunch.

And for the people who will inveritably use that joke against me, it was a joke, ok? :p

[natureisawesome]

foskers said:


Ahhh...nothing better to stir up controversy and anger than a religious post on a board full of "I don't give a fucks"...
Me being one of them...
I have no time for religion or god. Ever since the age of 8 I've been FORCED to go to church due to some bullshit scripture stating "As for me and my house, we will serve the lord."
Yet the reason god gives us the choice between heaven and hell is because he loves us and wants us to have that freedom. WHY exactly isn't that same thought applied to my having to go to church? You tell me.
I got no problems with religion and church and god and shit...but when people try to force it on me...I get pissed. Lol...
DO NOT think that that last sentence was aimed at you because I know it was my own choice to view this thread...I just wanted to put forth my ideas and beliefs the same as you.
Besides...the bible teaches that you should obey gods law first...then the law of the land. Smoking marijuana is illegal. Your breaking a law of the land. And in doing so...breaking gods law. Therefore you are sinning...excuse?

I understand how you feel foskers. When I was a kid my dad tried to force me to go to church too. I felt the people at his church didn't have real love and were fake. And I was right. When I got older I just wouldn't go and my Dad would lock the house and not let me back inside. I think it just pushes people farther away from God, I think God wants people to come to him on his own. It's not wrong to ask your child to come to church, but if they really really don't want to go they should just let them be and let them receive the consequences of their actions good or bad. But that doesn't mean a parent must stop raising them or teaching them what's right or wrong. And it doesn't mean a child doesn't have to listen or obey the rules of the household. I'm sorry that happened to you, and as I know that most professing Christians are fake and don't have the real love of Jesus that just makes it more confusing and heart wrenching and frustrating.

I hope that you recognize that the God of the bible isn't fake and he's got true and pure love.

As for my using cannabis, please refer to my response in the macro evolution thread # 44.

http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/130013-macroevolution-examples-2.html

[natureisawesome]

If you are going to use insults, and call me unreasonable and the like, then like you I will not waste my time speaking with you anymore.

Its obvious you werent looking for a discussion, you just wanted to state your beliefs and give the illusion that you wanted to listen and discuss things with others.

I come to these posts for the discussions, and to learn more about other posters, and see things from a different point of view. Even in this post I was able to gain a bit that I didnt know before. If you arent even willing to hold a discussion, then thank you for the bit of time you shared, and Ill note not to worry about attempting any sort of discussion with you again.

As a note though, its not very consistant to state that you will save your arguements for someone more reasonable, and then begin to argue against my views and post anyways.

You've said some things yourself that are not very nice either. Things that attack my beliefs and attack God. That makes me angry. ANd it makes me angry when my faith has been so often called blind when in reality they're the ones who often have blind faith. I don't think you were being reasonable. And it honestly wasn't my intention to verbally abuse you, and I apolagise that it came out that way. I'm sorry.

Yes I want to have conversations not just preach from a pulpit. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings and I hope to converse with you again. Have good day.

[Iambreathingin]

Yes but the problem is where do you draw the line?

So much in the bible is lost in translation, or simply taken in a variety of senses. How do you seperate Gods law from mans Law?

The pope is against the use of condoms, but I can't seem to pinpoint a black and white area of teh bible that supports this "law", not to mention countless other religions who deem them okay. Contraception didn't even exist when the bible was written so how could it be outlawed.

(Unless we read a wee bit harder, I think I remeber somthing about "Thou shalt be smiteth is he whom wlaks on the earth with the iPod 90gb, and the lord shall bring down mighty vengance on those downloading music for free")

;)

[imitator]

You've said some things yourself that are not very nice either. Things that attack my beliefs and attack God. That makes me angry. ANd it makes me angry when my faith has been so often called blind when in reality they're the ones who often have blind faith. I don't think you were being reasonable. And it honestly wasn't my intention to verbally abuse you, and I apolagise that it came out that way. I'm sorry.

Yes I want to have conversations not just preach from a pulpit. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings and I hope to converse with you again. Have good day.

I guess that is just where we differ then.

I have no problems with people calling into question my beliefs and views, I think it gives me a chance to better learn about myself, and to see other points of view from a decent perspective.

As a note though, I wasnt attacking anyone, not even a specific religion, with what I said. I was merely pointing out inconsistancies, and random thoughts I had in regards to them. There are so many other, easier ways to attack christianity then what I said, if it was my intent, I would imagine I would have stuck to the tried and true methods.

I have "faith" in very little in my life. I accept that I know very little, and that everything I "know" could very well all be false.

If someone is questioning, or "attacking" your beliefs and faith, I would imagine it would be something to be grateful for. It gives you a chance to defend what you believe in, and in doing so, makes your faith stronger, and more solid, as you were able to flesh out a way to explain your point of view to another, and in turn understood more about your faith as well.

If something, or someone, cant stand up to the scrutiny and questioning of others, how strong can it be? I understand the dislike of people calling into doubt something you strongly believe in, as I am sure most do, but if your faith is weak enough for them doing so to harm it, there are greater problems on your hand. This is just speculation, but I would not find it hard to believe if your God encouraged questioning his word and his religion, to see what else is out there, with the hope that you still choose christianity over the rest, but having done so with a real understanding of everything that is out there. (This is not to say that any of this applies, or is directed to you persay)

It was a question I always had when I was going through some of my classes... how can people be so certain that a specific religion is the perfect one for them, if they havent experienced but a sliver at best, of all the religions out there. They would have no idea if another religion was better for them, made more sense to them, and garnered more of their belief, if they never knew about it, right?

I mean, even if they were immensely satisfied, and happy with everything that their religion was bringing them, enough so that they feel like it could never get any better... what if there was another religion that would have made them feel even better? Its hard to ever know in situations like that, and it is a bit of a burden in the realm of time spent to explore even a small portion of the religions out there... and I mean truely explore. To take the time to read the scriptures for the religion, to understand teh background, and the history, and to try to truely understand the religion and most aspects of it. A general glance wont do you any good, you cant know what it truely is like at a glance, or by taking another persons word for it.

I come from a strongly religious family, and I understand the resistance to real debate and dissection of a persons religion. Because in the end, even though it is nothing more then true faith, people dont like to admit that they believe in something which they can not prove anything about. They know its faith, but they dont want to admit that they have nothing more then faith as proof. Its an interesting little cycle. My family was extremely dismayed, to put it lightly, with my choice to no longer follow the roman catholic faith, and even more upset when I changed my major way back when to Philosophy and World Religions.

They did not like to hear about other religions, how they did things, or how things were different in comparison to catholicism. They did not like the questions, they did not like the focus on everything involved with their religion. It truely bothered them to be fully questioned in every sense of the word about their faith and religion. At the time, I didnt understand it, today, I understand it a bit better, but I am sure I still miss the subtle nuances involved. Even with understanding why they acted as such, I still dont "understand it" if you get what I mean. I know why they do it, but it still doesnt make much sense to me, basically.

This question is directed entirely towards you natureisawesome... You believe strongly in your religion, your faith is very strong, correct? You also believe that chrisitianity is "right", and wish to make others see so as well, to save them, correct? If this is the case, how much time have you spent looking into other religions? Exploring everything out there with yours, including reading up on some of the more amazing religious philosophers for chrisitanity? Really, what I am asking is, for all the certainty and strength of conviction you have with your beliefs and religion, how much have you tried to test your faith, and explore what is out there? If you havent explored much in the way of what else is out there, how do you personally know that christianity is the proper path for you?

[natureisawesome]

To imitator,

On one hand I don't have a problem with challenging my beliefs because as you pointed on it gives me an opportunity to witness to them and share ideas and information they may not have heard before or may have been so devastated by the wretchedness of this world to look for themselves. But on the other hand, when people attack my belief I become very angry because I am sure and convinced in my heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God is good and he doesn't deserve all the junk that people give him. Besides, it's like I told my friend once, you lash out at God, but even if the God of the bible isn't the true God you are willingly ignorant of the nature of this universe which obviously shows his character, and willingly ignorant of the spiritual Truth that has been revealed to you through your conscience. I think that's the most frustrating thing for me really. That's why I said to you that I felt you were being unreasonable. Because it's just a total farce how people pretend to not recognize all the evidence of God in the natural world. I don't need to get a phd in biology to see it. God make it so that you can have faith, that you have a logical and reasonable basis for your faith right now, with no delay. It may be not the greatest faith, but with time it is sure to grow.

I rejected my parents Christianity when I was younger and turned to the counterculture hoping to find the answers. I wanted the truth. I wanted the real answers. I was so sick of my parents bull and the worlds bull and everyone's nonsense I was furiated. But at the same time I was hurt and had a natural tendency to to things that were selfish and my being brought up in this world and culture I'm in trained me to recognize certain matters of morality that when examined did not hold true but simply fell apart. I was hurt and turned away from Christianity both because of what I believe my selfish nature and because of the false Christianity that's so evident in this word.

So I went out and tried to experience other ways of life and different perspectives. Hippies, bums, stoner's, rockers, I met them all and observed what went on in this world. And I found that while in some ways they did not amount to the wretched fake love and righteousness of my parents, they were all full of bull too. Nobody had any clear answers. It was all smoke and mirrors and deception and vanity. Oh so much vanity.

So more and more the realization dawned on me, until it bloomed into a wonderful realization. I realized that if there is a God, he must be someone reasonable, someone that has pure love. Someone who understands us and how we feel and created us for a purpose. More than anything I wanted a real purpose, something bigger than myself, something that would rescue me from the insanity of this world. Something clear and understandable, and a path to walk that brings forth the fruit desired. In the world, I found only a never ending circle of vanity. I still remember in my vanity, sitting on the bus in an ignorant display of romanticism and philosophic ism reading some philosophical book of nonsense trying to explain God's nature without any divine revelation. It was just nothing. There was no true substance. Nothing to hold onto. I realized it was all a big fat lie.

So my heart in a way, led my to God's word. I read it and I read Jesus' words. And I read his words I recognized in my heart that the words coming out of his mouth was unlike anything I'd ever heard in my life. He had a real way, that reaped real fruit. Not a blind way or in any way full of the foolishness and vanity of this world. He wouldn't give in to the bull of the people, and their willing ignorance. He was true to the death. And I recognized that no one else ever spoke like him. There never was anyone quite like him. He was reasonable, blameless and full of kindness. And he knew exactly where he was going. And I knew then that he was the light, and that everything I know about this world, the nature of the universe and the corruption of mankind and fitting with what I know, deeper than anyone knows by sight that this man is the way and he has the light and he is the light.



This question is directed entirely towards you natureisawesome... You believe strongly in your religion, your faith is very strong, correct? You also believe that Christianity is "right", and wish to make others see so as well, to save them, correct? If this is the case, how much time have you spent looking into other religions? Exploring everything out there with yours, including reading up on some of the more amazing religious philosophers for Christianity? Really, what I am asking is, for all the certainty and strength of conviction you have with your beliefs and religion, how much have you tried to test your faith, and explore what is out there? If you haven't explored much in the way of what else is out there, how do you personally know that Christianity is the proper path for you?

I have heard this reasoning before. I don't choose a religion because it's the best one. Best doesn't mean the true one. If the true religion was some very small religion that you would have to search for, then I suppose I would have searched longer and studied more religions than I have to this point. But here's another thing about it. It's true that there are hundreds and hundreds of religions out there. But they can all be split up into much fewer such as pantheism, monotheism, polytheism etc.

Some people say, don't knock it till you've tried it. But this statement is unreasonable. There are many things we never do to see how much we like it because we know from simple observation and using our common sense that it's not good.

It all starts with a conviction. And your conviction can be right and logical and based on careful observation, or it can be based on ignorance and selfishness and a bad attitude. So I took my conviction to the bible to check it out. And from the beginning and then more and more I found my faith being built up and confirmed more and more by what I learned in the bible and from the outside world.

And it's hard to explain to some people, because somethings some people just don't understand the way you do, like when a parent tells his children not to do something and they just don't understand. But I have learned so much, and I know in my heart with a knowledge deeper than what any other sense can know that my faith is true.

[Arc_of_Light]

I think that anyone who has had any serious studies in biology or medicine cannot deny that there is an intelligent creative force behind what we call "Life". To do so is just plain ignorant. For what purpose would evolution bring along delicately balanced, complex and intelligent beings? If evolution and random chemical reactions were all that existed, wouldn't the path of less resistance be taken? We would not be humans, we would all just be rocks lying around. Rocks and other inanimate objects outlast everything living, so according to evolutionary law....there is no sense in evolving for millions of years to be something that can be destroyed in 48hs. due to someting as pasive lack of water intake.

Now, as to who the Inteligent Creative Force really is, and what religion has dibbs on the "Right to be the Only True Religion"... well the scope of such a debate cannot be fully carried out by long posts and witty replies. At most what can be done is an exposition of all pertinent info about major religions in an unbiased fashion, and leave it at that. Let the people beleive what they will. Anything else is stirring up a hornet's nest.

When considering what religion to believe in, if any, you should ask yourself: Why should I not beleive in this religion? Instead of choosing one right off the bat, choose them all and learn about them and then eliminate them one after the other according to any flaws or contradictions. As for rock solid proof of the authenticity of one religion over the others, there is none and you will never find any. True proof comes from within, and it is called Faith.

[natureisawesome]

When considering what religion to believe in, if any, you should ask yourself: Why should I not beleive in this religion? Instead of choosing one right off the bat, choose them all and learn about them and then eliminate them one after the other according to any flaws or contradictions. As for rock solid proof of the authenticity of one religion over the others, there is none and you will never find any.

I wouldn't choose them ALL , that's dangerous. I think that's kind of the opposite. But to take from what you're saying sort of I would say you could get the information about them in a concise and summarized fashion and compare them with each other. If I was still seeking the right religion, then I would defenitely not close my mind to considering any of them before I've even considered them.


True proof comes from within, and it is called Faith.

I would say that true faith is the logical extension of what we see and observe in the outside world and within ourseves especially.

Later.

[imitator]

Now, as to who the Inteligent Creative Force really is, and what religion has dibbs on the "Right to be the Only True Religion"... well the scope of such a debate cannot be fully carried out by long posts and witty replies. At most what can be done is an exposition of all pertinent info about major religions in an unbiased fashion, and leave it at that. Let the people beleive what they will. Anything else is stirring up a hornet's nest.

I personally dont see why a pantheon of sorts isnt possibly the correct answer, if any is.

Just as christianity can say that there is plenty of evidence in this world to prove that what they believe in is true, so can many many other religions. Ignoring the incredibly long post I would have to make to explain my theory on gods and the creation of them... its not hard to fathom that perhaps the majority, or all of the worshiped gods exist. I always thought the part in 10 commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", was a good sign that it was very possible.

I think I would be much more willing to accept and believe in a pantheon type setting then I would of just one religion being correct and all others before and after it are wrong. It just makes more sense.

[Hardcore Newbie]

So more and more the realization dawned on me, until it bloomed into a wonderful realization. I realized that if there is a God, he must be someone reasonable, someone that has pure love. Someone who understands us and how we feel and created us for a purpose. More than anything I wanted a real purpose, something bigger than myself, something that would rescue me from the insanity of this world. Something clear and understandable, and a path to walk that brings forth the fruit desired.Are you sure this has NOTHING to do with your view of the world?


Because it's just a total farce how people pretend to not recognize all the evidence of God in the natural world.Yes, I realize this part of your post comes before the other part. Even so, it pretty much demonstrates the thought process. There was a time you felt empty, you found God, which was exactly the thing that you were hoping for. You wanted something bigger than you, a purpose, and to be rescued. Lo and behold, you found it in the Bible. Would you have ever adopted the Bible if you were content with your life? I can't say for sure, but probably not. It seems that the Bible only only became true when it fit your needs and desires



And it's hard to explain to some people, because somethings some people just don't understand the way you do, like when a parent tells his children not to do something and they just don't understand. But I have learned so much, and I know in my heart with a knowledge deeper than what any other sense can know that my faith is true.I stopped blindly listening to my parents as soon as I developed a thing called reasoning. If my parents didn't have a valid reason for my doing or not doing something, they had to explain it to me. If they didn't have a valid reason, then there's obviously no need to follow the commands. And i was hardly a rebellious kid, i just figured that things need reasoning behind them.

nice try equating yourself with the concerned parent only looking out for the ignorant children, but parent's aren't always right, and we're not children.

[JunkYard]

Religious arrogance, pride, and selfrighteousness will destroy organized religion. When will it end? It ends when the 'message' of Christ is realized. Love, equality, acceptance, forgiveness, life ...

Will the faithless ever see? Will the bible thumpers come to see? After they experience true Grace, I think they might. It depends upon their willingness to receive, understand, embrace and follow something pure.


:twocents:


Love

[JunkYard]

I'm not sure there would be an argument if those arguing didn't either feel superior, threatened, or maybe even a little insecure.

Junk,

[Hardcore Newbie]

I'm not sure there would be an argument if those arguing didn't either feel superior, threatened, or maybe even a little insecure.

Junk,You can argue without feeling any of those things. Not to say that isn't some people's motivation, but they certainly aren't mine.

[JunkYard]

A person can certainly debate a topic without these motivators. I think argument is something different altogether, tho. I don't know your heart bro, so I cannot comment on your motivation, but more often than not these are the roots for argument.


What's the topic, anyway? :D


Junk

[Hardcore Newbie]

I think most of it in this one is stemming from people disagreeing with other people's logic.

Science literally means knowledge, faith is the lack thereof, so I don't exactly know how the thread starter proposes jumping from trying to acquire more knowledge to just having faith, or even if that's the intent at all.

In any case, I disagree with many assumptions being used as fact that the thread starter is making, so I call them into question.

[JunkYard]

Science is a study of facts; faith is more like [experiencing] something unseen, unverifiable in scientific terms.

The bible defines it as this:

Faith is the [substance] of things hoped for, and the [evidence] of things not seen. Only through personal experience can one come to faith. There are those whos faith is blind, lacking any evidence; those who follow for sake of following, hoping without substance, so to speak. (Vanity in its worst form, imo.) Blah!!

We all have science, Hardcore. A sound Faith however, is not so easily attained; it comes from experience.


Junk

[Hardcore Newbie]

I like that idea. Is it saying that no one can convince you from your path except something supernatural?

[JunkYard]

Define supernatural.

[mfqr]

This doesn't prove that God exists on any level. This is just explaining that we are alive, and that it is a miracle that we are alive. It's the same thing as intelligent design, except you explain it in-depth and lightly dabble on science. Science and God cannot be combined, because there is no real science that can prove it or disprove it, otherwise we would have already been able to prove or disprove it to everyone.

My mind is not changed. I will remain agnostic. I used to be a christian, but to me it's all just bullshit. What I truly think the people who wrote the bible saw were aliens from other planets, who were visiting us at the time. It's a fact that people in those times saw alien spacecraft, because there are drawings of them. It would certainly make sense for people back then to believe it was some sort of God.

I truly believe that this sort of thing was indeed written in the bible, however, it was removed from it. Yes, your bibles are edited. Why wouldn't they be? Don't you see that religion is just another system of control that has controlled the whole world for a millenium? Look at all the wars that have been started purely because one other set of people did not believe in that particular religion. A loving God wants to spread the word of him through conquest? Give me a break. No, I don't think Satan did it.

Religion has been the most powerful and effective system of control for thousands of years... and it still controls the world effectively. Look at what the Evangelicals are trying to accomplish. That's right, they want to control our government, and get rid of the separation of the church and state. Yes, let's all go back to medieval times where religion ruled all, and if you didn't believe in christianity or catholicism, you were a demon and had to be dealt with. Give me a break!

Anyway, I am not trying to offend anyone, just saying what I think. If you took any offense to it, I apologize.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the supernatural. I, however, do not believe there is much of a probability of there being a God. It's possible, sure, but very improbable - at least in my eyes.

There's no reason to believe in religion unless you can't find happiness yourself, or you don't understand how to abide by your own set of morals. It's for sheep!

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I guess many things could be supernatural. talking donkeys for one. I really have a problem with that :p

But, if a donkey (which I've only seen in person a couple of time, I used to live in the country) talked to me, would I accept that as something that could *only* be explained by a higher power? or would i say that it could have been me... not hallucinating, because that draws comparisons to drugs, but daydreaming?

I honestly don't know. I guess it'd all depend on how surprised I was and how real it seemed. I guess what the donkey had to say would be important to. If it said "get a sandwich"..... hehe

[mfqr]

I guess many things could be supernatural. talking donkeys for one. I really have a problem with that :p

But, if a donkey (which I've only seen in person a couple of time, I used to live in the country) talked to me, would I accept that as something that could *only* be explained by a higher power? or would i say that it could have been me... not hallucinating, because that draws comparisons to drugs, but daydreaming?

I honestly don't know. I guess it'd all depend on how surprised I was and how real it seemed. I guess what the donkey had to say would be important to. If it said "get a sandwich"..... hehe

It doesn't have to be attributed to some god or divine entity. That could be attributed to the supernatural, however. Or perhaps it could be attributed to evolution. Maybe somehow that donkey was a very rare breed who has evolved beyond all the others, and had gained enough intelligence to speak in a human way! Haha.

Ghosts, and whatever, I believe in (at least there's some sort of visual evidence of this, many around the world have claimed to see ghosts - but nobody has ever claimed to see God, only "feel" his presence. Of course, that's just them tricking themselves). I believe in the astral plane, all that stuff. I don't believe in a divine entity, because there's no reason to. Am I afraid to go to hell? No. If there was a god, I would go to hell... and that's fine with me. At least I would have lived my life the way I want to, rather than listening to some dude in a church, whose only want is to get your money from the donation plate. Lol, it's so lame. Religion is cult-like, doesn't anyone realize this? Brainwashed. I believe religion should be abolished from this Earth forever. What REAL good has it caused? Looking at it in the whole, throughout millenia, what good has it caused? Tell me. Wars to spread the influence and control of it? Is that good? Maybe to Satan, right, because he must have caused those wars. Haha.

[Hardcore Newbie]

It doesn't have to be attributed to some god or divine entity. That could be attributed to the supernatural, however. Or perhaps it could be attributed to evolution. Maybe somehow that donkey was a very rare breed who has evolved beyond all the others, and had gained enough intelligence to speak in a human way! Haha. I think this is why I'd be very hard to convince. For any event, there are a multitude of explanations on how it can occur. Maybe there was in ipod hidden in the donkey's hair, and it was chewing to look exactly like the words that it 'spoke' to me. There are tonnes of possibilities, it seems like whenever there's something we can't explain, people (in general) jump straight to god.

[JunkYard]

I guess many things could be supernatural. talking donkeys for one. I really have a problem with that :p

But, if a donkey (which I've only seen in person a couple of time, I used to live in the country) talked to me, would I accept that as something that could *only* be explained by a higher power? or would i say that it could have been me... not hallucinating, because that draws comparisons to drugs, but daydreaming?

I honestly don't know. I guess it'd all depend on how surprised I was and how real it seemed. I guess what the donkey had to say would be important to. If it said "get a sandwich"..... hehe


I don't think you'll ever hear a donkey tell you to get a sandwich, haha! That would just be weird, or even a snake tricking you into eating a peice of fruit. ;)

Supernatural to me, is that realm where things cannot be verified through science. Things like spirits, on the lower scale [emotion] on a higher, [honesty] and [love] and [compassion]. Can we know their substance? What they are made of? No, but we can experience them subjectively. This to me is supernatural. Same with God and faith.

We try to make things complicated, or religious leaders do so in attempt to gain control. Christ on the other hand simply told us to love one another as he loved us. [without condition]

It is an amazing thing when you come to a point where love permeates your being...It is an amazing [experience] through which my faith has been established. That is 'supernatural'


Junk

[jammin26]

if your talking about god, i'm him.

[JunkYard]

if your talking about god, i'm him.

Are you that I Am?
Or are you that Am Not?
Doesn't really matter friend
unless you got some pot.

:D

[jammin26]

hello natureisawesome, ive read that post and some of that stuff is interesting. to be honest only the stuff about the universe i.e outside of the world - really catches my attention. the sort of mind i have, i will read sections of that and seriously wonder. whether you copied it out of a book, who know's, but if youve haven't that's good. heres what i think, lifes fucking rediculos god is dead. there aint spirituality anymore. society is shit i need a spliff to see any good which is wrong . i know no one i have no friends but heres the riff baby... im god... baby im the mutha fuckin G.O.D till im dead which is gonna be a fuckin long time unless some cunt fucks me or i get run over or some shit then i'll see whats on the other side of this shit.

[jammin26]

spot on, junkyard

[natureisawesome]

Imitator said:


I personally dont see why a pantheon of sorts isnt possibly the correct answer, if any is.

Just as christianity can say that there is plenty of evidence in this world to prove that what they believe in is true, so can many many other religions. Ignoring the incredibly long post I would have to make to explain my theory on gods and the creation of them... its not hard to fathom that perhaps the majority, or all of the worshiped gods exist. I always thought the part in 10 commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", was a good sign that it was very possible.

I think I would be much more willing to accept and believe in a pantheon type setting then I would of just one religion being correct and all others before and after it are wrong. It just makes more sense.

I would write back to this, but first remember that It was adressed in the original post.

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
So more and more the realization dawned on me, until it bloomed into a wonderful realization. I realized that if there is a God, he must be someone reasonable, someone that has pure love. Someone who understands us and how we feel and created us for a purpose. More than anything I wanted a real purpose, something bigger than myself, something that would rescue me from the insanity of this world. Something clear and understandable, and a path to walk that brings forth the fruit desired.

Hardcore newbie:

Are you sure this has NOTHING to do with your view of the world?

Of course it has to do with my view of the world. But my logic, conscience and common sense and observation worked to help me come to that conclusion. I recognise my bias.



Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Because it's just a total farce how people pretend to not recognize all the evidence of God in the natural world.

Hardcore newbie:

Yes, I realize this part of your post comes before the other part. Even so, it pretty much demonstrates the thought process. There was a time you felt empty, you found God, which was exactly the thing that you were hoping for. You wanted something bigger than you, a purpose, and to be rescued. Lo and behold, you found it in the Bible. Would you have ever adopted the Bible if you were content with your life? I can't say for sure, but probably not. It seems that the Bible only only became true when it fit your needs and desires

Why do so many always give the doubtful answer from the beginning. If my needs and desire were and are valid, which thier is no logical reason why they couldn't be, then the scenario would have be very similar to the scenario you gave above. That is, it would appear from an outside observer.

well, If you're doubtful of your own conscience then you'll probably be doubtful of others. But it's just one of those human experiences than nobody denies. Except this one they do.




Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
And it's hard to explain to some people, because somethings some people just don't understand the way you do, like when a parent tells his children not to do something and they just don't understand. But I have learned so much, and I know in my heart with a knowledge deeper than what any other sense can know that my faith is true.

hardcore newbie:

I stopped blindly listening to my parents as soon as I developed a thing called reasoning. If my parents didn't have a valid reason for my doing or not doing something, they had to explain it to me. If they didn't have a valid reason, then there's obviously no need to follow the commands. And i was hardly a rebellious kid, i just figured that things need reasoning behind them.

I believe in having a mind of your own, and testing things to see if they hold to be true, but i also beleive in listening to your parents and obeying them because they're your parents and they have authority over you and you would want your kids to be obedient children as well. That doesn't mean you have to be a robot and just belive what everbody says though.


nice try equating yourself with the concerned parent only looking out for the ignorant children, but parent's aren't always right, and we're not children.


I thought you might take it that way. I never meant it that way. I was only using that as an example because the older person has had experiences that the younger hasn't and doesn't understand the same way.

No, I'm not your parent.

[natureisawesome]

Junkyard said:


Religious arrogance, pride, and selfrighteousness will destroy organized religion. When will it end? It ends when the 'message' of Christ is realized. Love, equality, acceptance, forgiveness, life ...

Will the faithless ever see? Will the bible thumpers come to see? After they experience true Grace, I think they might. It depends upon their willingness to receive, understand, embrace and follow something pure.

True grace is found in Jesus Christ. And Love forgiveness and understanding too.

[natureisawesome]

OZo:


This argument falls apart when causal relationships are assumed. As many philosophers have already pointed out.

Please elaborate.

[natureisawesome]

Junkyard:


I'm not sure there would be an argument if those arguing didn't either feel superior, threatened, or maybe even a little insecure

Or maybe I'm just trying to do something good like save your soul. Why does it so often turned negative? Why so often the negative response first .

[natureisawesome]

Junkyard:


A person can certainly debate a topic without these motivators. I think argument is something different altogether, tho. I don't know your heart bro, so I cannot comment on your motivation, but more often than not these are the roots for argument.

I don't want to argue at all. It's better than nothing but it's really the opposite direction I want to go.

[natureisawesome]

hardcore newbie:



Science literally means knowledge, faith is the lack thereof, so I don't exactly know how the thread starter proposes jumping from trying to acquire more knowledge to just having faith, or even if that's the intent at all.


In any case, I disagree with many assumptions being used as fact that the thread starter is making, so I call them into question.

Scientific evidence can lead to faith. The observations and logic and common sense lead to faith. So your faith has a foundation.

You mean the axioms in my post? Please elaborate.

[natureisawesome]

Junkyard said:

Science is a study of facts; faith is more like [experiencing] something unseen, unverifiable in scientific terms.

It's just what I said earlier in the post, true faith is a logical extention of the evidence of this world. In another part of the bible it says

" 2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. "

You see this casts light on why we walk by faith and not by sight. God gives us a recognition of his eternal nature, but we can't see him and so we have to believe in him without sight. Our outside bodily senses can't grasp something like that.

Recognise before I said you couldn't validate anything for a fact the way imitator wanted it unless you're eternal. Well we're not eternal ourselves but we recognise God is and that encompasses everything ( but we can't see Giod so we walk by faith ). and compare and use logic with the evidence of the outside world and you have both spiritual evidence and material evidence, spiritual being the greater ( but not without the material).

[natureisawesome]

hardcore newbie:


I like that idea. Is it saying that no one can convince you from your path except something supernatural?

To convince you to a path to God, I would say you need recognition of his spiritual nature I think we need that to interperet our outside observations to recognise him, and tro recognise him in our hearts. How else would you recognise spiritual but with spiritual ?

[JunkYard]

Junkyard:



Or maybe I'm just trying to do something good like save your soul. Why does it so often turned negative? Why so often the negative response first .

Realize this, natureisawsome: Only through Christ and by the Grace of God are we saved (This is my beleif) Salvation cannot, nor should it be forced upon anyone. We come to it in our own time, on our own terms, and only by the grace of God. We, as Christians, merely plant the seeds.

I'm afraid that by insisting others come to your stand, you are driving them away. Understand that they do not posses what you posses, bro. Try to remember when you were lost, and how you came to understand the Grace of God. Did it come with a conversation? Did it come through an argument, or debate?

I don't know your motivation; I only get a glimps of you from what you post. You may be trying to save souls, but that is not your charge. Your charge, as a Christian, is to simply spread the good news of the kingdom, assuming you are aware of that kingdom.

You have friends here, and I Am One of them.


Love

[JunkYard]

It's just what I said earlier in the post, true faith is a logical extention of the evidence of this world. In another part of the bible it says

" 2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. "

You see this casts light on why we walk by faith and not by sight. God gives us a recognition of his eternal nature, but we can't see him and so we have to believe in him without sight. Our outside bodily senses can't grasp something like that.

Recognise before I said you couldn't validate anything for a fact the way imitator wanted it unless you're eternal. Well we're not eternal ourselves but we recognise God is and that encompasses everything ( but we can't see Giod so we walk by faith ). and compare and use logic with the evidence of the outside world and you have both spiritual evidence and material evidence, spiritual being the greater ( but not without the material).

Well said

[natureisawesome]

mfqr:


This doesn't prove that God exists on any level. This is just explaining that we are alive, and that it is a miracle that we are alive. It's the same thing as intelligent design, except you explain it in-depth and lightly dabble on science. Science and God cannot be combined, because there is no real science that can prove it or disprove it, otherwise we would have already been able to prove or disprove it to everyone.

A person has to be open for something to be proven to them. There can be proof, but we value in our minds and hearts what's reasonable as proof. SOme people see things with their own eyes and it's not proof enough. For some people with some things their never enough proof. It's just a lack of faith, it's not reasonable or logical.


My mind is not changed. I will remain agnostic. I used to be a christian, but to me it's all just bullshit. What I truly think the people who wrote the bible saw were aliens from other planets, who were visiting us at the time. It's a fact that people in those times saw alien spacecraft, because there are drawings of them. It would certainly make sense for people back then to believe it was some sort of God.

can you show me some examples?


I truly believe that this sort of thing was indeed written in the bible, however, it was removed from it. Yes, your bibles are edited. Why wouldn't they be? Don't you see that religion is just another system of control that has controlled the whole world for a millenium? Look at all the wars that have been started purely because one other set of people did not believe in that particular religion. A loving God wants to spread the word of him through conquest? Give me a break. No, I don't think Satan did it.

Excuse me, but about those aliens in the bible.. can you show me some evidence please?

And are you referring to the catholic church ? I already pointed out that the catholic church isn't Christian earlier in this thread. They're not Christian and Jesus did not teach us to have any kind of physcial warfare, the opposite actually. If you want me to explain a few things about the catholic babylon mystery religion another thread can be started about that later. ( Like when thsi thread is done at least), but otherwise let's leave the rcc out of this.


Religion has been the most powerful and effective system of control for thousands of years... and it still controls the world effectively. Look at what the Evangelicals are trying to accomplish. That's right, they want to control our government, and get rid of the separation of the church and state. Yes, let's all go back to medieval times where religion ruled all, and if you didn't believe in christianity or catholicism, you were a demon and had to be dealt with. Give me a break!

The evangicals and everyone else who votes in a Democracy all judge easch other through the ballot so everyone is guilty. But again, evangicals are obviously not Christians either. And I know their false doctrine.


There's no reason to believe in religion unless you can't find happiness yourself, or you don't understand how to abide by your own set of morals. It's for sheep!

I will reiterate a previous declaration in my post. There is no morality without God. And yes, I'm a sheep and I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Of course it has to do with my view of the world. But my logic, conscience and common sense and observation worked to help me come to that conclusion. I recognise my bias. So why did you say that you think it's a total farce that people "pretend" to not recognize the existence of god? Other people might not have the same needs as you.[/quote]



Why do so many always give the doubtful answer from the beginning. If my needs and desire were and are valid, which thier is no logical reason why they couldn't be, then the scenario would have be very similar to the scenario you gave above. That is, it would appear from an outside observer.

well, If you're doubtful of your own conscience then you'll probably be doubtful of others. But it's just one of those human experiences than nobody denies. Except this one they do.I'm not saying that you didn't have needs, I'm saying that *if* you didn't have the need to be rescued, you probably never would have turned to the Bible. It's only when you realized your needs that the bible became fact to you. Some people don't have those needs, so they don't need the bible in return.

And I'm not sure what you mean by being doubtful of my conscious. If it's just a hypothetical, then I'll spell it out and say I'm quite happy with my moral system and my thought process.


I thought you might take it that way. I never meant it that way. I was only using that as an example because the older person has had experiences that the younger hasn't and doesn't understand the same way.

No, I'm not your parent.Yeah, and that view is very condescending. There are quite a few analogies you could have chosen, but the parent and child is the one that you chose.


You mean the axioms in my post? Please elaborate.without reading the entire post again, I'll try and show you a few.


Why? If it designed and created all things, then it knows the details about all things. This attribute is called omniscience.that's assuming that this being didn't just throw things together for amusement and surprise. A being wouldn't have to be all knowing to create the universe. really fucking smart? yes. inifinitely smart? not necessarily. I'm sure God could devise a way of creating randomness that not even God would know the outcome of. maybe God would understand it after the fact, but during the creation of say... sand, It just used a random number for the molecules and so on. And if this isn't a possibility, then God isn't all powerful anyways (inability to generate a truly random number).


It also remains possible that none of them are correct and God has chosen to remain anonymous. But if God did want to be known, it is impossible that God might fail. God is omnipotent and omniscient including perfect knowledge of the future.It is impossible that a perfectly powerful and all knowing God would fail to accomplish any goal. Now, where does that leave things?
If all the religions of the world are wrong, that makes God anonymous. Just because mankind has grasped the concept of deities, gods and God, that doesn't mean that we've found the right one. We might be close, but God could just be a prankster. Putting out ideas for everyone to grasp, everything but the right one. Knowing as much as God does, you think It'd have to spice things up from time to time.

And again, the pantheism. You said in a subsequent post when I asked why the universe couldn't be "supernatural", you said that the atom was only natural. Yes, that's what evidence points to, I agree, but to think that there's no possibility of the contrary, no matter how small, it's still an assumption that you must make to continue the argument.

This thread (http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/129423-does-believe-god.html) deals with the concept of all powerful beings and all knowing beings conflicting with free will, so instead of having that argument here, feel free to comment on that in the other thread.


I will reiterate a previous declaration in my post. There is no morality without God. And yes, I'm a sheep and I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf.

I also disagree with this. For many reasons. It's my assumptions that animals don't believe in deities, yet many of them get along fine. Sheep for example :)

There might be more, but that's what I'll post today.

[natureisawesome]

mfqr


It doesn't have to be attributed to some god or divine entity. That could be attributed to the supernatural, however. Or perhaps it could be attributed to evolution. Maybe somehow that donkey was a very rare breed who has evolved beyond all the others, and had gained enough intelligence to speak in a human way! Haha.

Yes it could possibly be a hallucination. But if you saw a talking donkey, they by itself opens the possiblity that the donkey really did talk, especially if you're sober. But you can to also take in what you know about the rest of the universe take that into account too.


Ghosts, and whatever, I believe in (at least there's some sort of visual evidence of this, many around the world have claimed to see ghosts - but nobody has ever claimed to see God

That's not true. Moses saw God's back when He hid in a rock. And Abraham saw God with angels. ( although not in all of his glory), and Jacob wrestled with him, and He has appeared to others in the bible including the around 400 people after he was risen from the dead, and in his glory with Peter James and John on the mountain with Moses and Elijah. And Jesus is God and lots of people saw him and saw him doing miracles and healings ( supernatural phenomena). So that's not true.



I believe religion should be abolished from this Earth forever. What REAL good has it caused?

A lot. A lot of people have claimed to follow a religion and were evil and violent. That doesnt make the bible wrong. It makes people wrong. If the bible taught people to be evil, now that would be another story.

That's a pretty strong judgement there and the fact that you "haha" about this topic shows you're not giving it the seriousness and consideration it deserves. Whether God exists or doesn't it
s a very serious matter. Na there's lots of reason to belive in God.

[natureisawesome]

hardcore newbie:


I think this is why I'd be very hard to convince. For any event, there are a multitude of explanations on how it can occur. Maybe there was in ipod hidden in the donkey's hair, and it was chewing to look exactly like the words that it 'spoke' to me. There are tonnes of possibilities, it seems like whenever there's something we can't explain, people (in general) jump straight to god.

I think my reply before answers this.

[Hardcore Newbie]

hardcore newbie:



I think my reply before answers this.
I already agree that God is a possibility. I just think God is highly unlikely.

[natureisawesome]

I'm afraid that by insisting others come to your stand, you are driving them away. Understand that they do not posses what you posses, bro. Try to remember when you were lost, and how you came to understand the Grace of God. Did it come with a conversation? Did it come through an argument, or debate?

Yes, within myself. Any logic that tries to tell me it's wrong to reach out to those who are lost isn't reasonable. Appraently we can do it in every other area exception reliigion. Which is intersting. And for Christians It always comes with a conversion.

I do think there is a way you can approach others the right way without driving them away. But then again sometimes people are just bound to run away because they don't like what you're saying.


I don't know your motivation; I only get a glimps of you from what you post. You may be trying to save souls, but that is not your charge.

That's not what the bible says.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Yes, within myself. Any logic that tries to tell me it's wrong to reach out to those who are lost isn't reasonable. Appraently we can do it in every other area exception reliigion. Which is intersting. And for Christians It always comes with a conversion.
And this is also a very condescending view point. I am not lost.

I don't mind debating on philosophical levels and such, but please don't tell people who don't agree with you that they are in need of rescuing.

[JunkYard]

Yes, within myself. Any logic that tries to tell me it's wrong to reach out to those who are lost isn't reasonable. Appraently we can do it in every other area exception reliigion. Which is intersting. And for Christians It always comes with a conversion.

I do think there is a way you can approach others the right way without driving them away. But then again sometimes people are just bound to run away because they don't like what you're saying.



That's not what the bible says.

By all means reach out; I would never tell you otherwise. We are to increase through others what God has given to us. (Remember the talants) You are going to do what you are going to do. I'll not try to stop you. Just remember what is was that turned you.

Discussion is a great thing, but when it turns to argument, there is no win.

Show me where the Bible tells us to save souls, or that 'we' can. Are you God? Are you Christ? Do you really think that 'you' can save someone? We plant seeds, we encourage and instruct. We lead by example, and through our speach, understanding and disposition we make known the Gospel to those 'open' to receive.

:twocents:

[natureisawesome]

So why did you say that you think it's a total farce that people "pretend" to not recognize the existence of god? Other people might not have the same needs as you.

We all need love man. We all need life. And we all have a consciencess and a need for peace. When I said that, I wasn't omitting the spiritual evidence, but I was talking about how all the plants and animals look incredibly designed. It's unreasonable to act like it doesn't and that it's unreasonable to consider (highly consider) that it's created.


And I'm not sure what you mean by being doubtful of my conscious. If it's just a hypothetical, then I'll spell it out and say I'm quite happy with my moral system and my thought process.

Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're right. Evil people live in happiness and pleasure too.


Yeah, and that view is very condescending. There are quite a few analogies you could have chosen, but the parent and child is the one that you chose.

I couldn't think of another one at the moment. Let's move on.


that's assuming that this being didn't just throw things together for amusement and surprise. A being wouldn't have to be all knowing to create the universe. really fucking smart? yes. inifinitely smart? not necessarily. I'm sure God could devise a way of creating randomness that not even God would know the outcome of.

A truly omniscient God couldn't be truly igorant of anything. But I suppose he could just throw things randomly together if he wanted to. But does what we observe in the outside world resemble a jumbled mess?



We might be close, but God could just be a prankster. Putting out ideas for everyone to grasp, everything but the right one. Knowing as much as God does, you think It'd have to spice things up from time to time.

Love never grows old. And again, does this reflect what we know about the evidence we have?



And again, the pantheism. You said in a subsequent post when I asked why the universe couldn't be "supernatural", you said that the atom was only natural. Yes, that's what evidence points to, I agree, but to think that there's no possibility of the contrary, no matter how small, it's still an assumption that you must make to continue the argument.

Yes, I admit that's what axioms are. But we have the eternal also. And besides, shouldn't we go on the evidence we do have? Don't you think it's at least enough to reach out for God ?


This thread deals with the concept of all powerful beings and all knowing beings conflicting with free will, so instead of having that argument here, feel free to comment on that in the other thread.

I didn't know that was an issue at all. I will review the thread.


I also disagree with this. For many reasons. It's my assumptions that animals don't believe in deities, yet many of them get along fine. Sheep for example

Yes, they don't have the same recognition of God we do. That's one of the things that make them so different. But they are different creatures and so behave differently/ held to a different standard, but never anything truly evil. But I think animals have a conscience too. A dog knows when he's done wrong for example.

[natureisawesome]

And on that last note btw, animals do not get along always I'm sure sheep have conflicts too. The whole world is in corruption and it's tooth and fang. But I still think they have some recognition of God somehow, or else how could they recognise when they've done wrong, or act the way they do towards humans.

[JunkYard]

And this is also a very condescending view point. I am not lost.

I don't mind debating on philosophical levels and such, but please don't tell people who don't agree with you that they are in need of rescuing.

Not condescending at all, Hardcore. Merely a realization after the fact. All mankind is in need of God's grace. Some people just can't see it until they're on the other side.:cool:

Junk

Love

[natureisawesome]

junkyard


Show me where the Bible tells us to save souls, or that 'we' can. Are you God? Are you Christ? Do you really think that 'you' can save someone? We plant seeds, we encourage and instruct. We lead by example, and through our speach, understanding and disposition we make known the Gospel to those 'open' to receive.

Exactly what i'm doing. So there's no problem. exept the gospel is preached to all not just those open to recieve.

[JunkYard]

Oh yes, the seed is scattered even on the wayside.

[natureisawesome]

You guys sure are giving my fingers a work out.

[JunkYard]

What I meant by making it known to those 'open' to receive, is that if they are not 'open' to receive, they won't receive. We simply can't make them, ya know?

[Hardcore Newbie]

We all need love man. We all need life. And we all have a consciencess and a need for peace. When I said that, I wasn't omitting the spiritual evidence, but I was talking about how all the plants and animals look incredibly designed. It's unreasonable to act like it doesn't and that it's unreasonable to consider (highly consider) that it's created.looking incredibly designed, is again, purely subjective. Also, if we assume that these are the best designs, i don't think it's unreasonable that after a long long long long time, that the best designs are the ones that we see. We wouldn't see a bunch of shit that doesn't work, because... well... it doesn't work.


Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're right. Evil people live in happiness and pleasure too.Well, I'm not doubtful of my conscience, and i don't doubt yours. So I guess we'll move one from this too. [/quote]



A truly omniscient God couldn't be truly igorant of anything. But I suppose he could just throw things randomly together if he wanted to. But does what we observe in the outside world resemble a jumbled mess?
Duck billed platypus. Even marijuana, to me, looks pretty damn jumbled. Appearance, again, is subjective. What looks organized to you may be disorganized to me, and vice versa.


Love never grows old. And again, does this reflect what we know about the evidence we have?
It'd explain a lot of things, like... hmmm, what example do I like to use a lot? talking animals? what better way to mess with someone than to make a donkey talk. Lots of things in religion seem like a guy who just says random things for kicks... Don't wear this, don't use pillows... STAND ON ONE LEG FOREVER!


Yes, I admit that's what axioms are. But we have the eternal also. And besides, shouldn't we go on the evidence we do have? Don't you think it's at least enough to reach out for God ?
not really. If god is this hidden to me and he, for whatever reason, needs me to recognize him, he can always take my open invite to chat and shoot the shit.


I didn't know that was an issue at all. I will review the thread.
maybe you'll actually answer the question I've posed, no one else has :p


Yes, they don't have the same recognition of God we do. That's one of the things that make them so different. But they are different creatures and so behave differently/ held to a different standard, but never anything truly evil. But I think animals have a conscience too. A dog knows when he's done wrong for example.I think they feel too. But if animals can get along without god (assumed), then why can't humans? You think it'd be easier for us to get along than animals because we (presumably, again) have higher reasoning skills, and can see the benefit of having working together.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Not condescending at all, Hardcore. Merely a realization after the fact. All mankind is in need of God's grace. Some people just can't see it until they're on the other side.:cool:

Junk

Love
It is condescending, by it's very definition. You view yourself to have something that i don't, and in turn, you have the best prize, so to speak.

There's nothing for me to "find". I'm not lost.

[Hardcore Newbie]

You guys sure are giving my fingers a work out.:p it'll make you a better typer, remember to use home keys.

Actually it's funny, I'm a self taught typer. I use my entire left hand fairly properly, but I only use the first and middle finger on my right hand. I only use the left shift and I only use my left thumb for the space bar. I also look at the keys most of the time, not because I don't know where the keys are, but simply out of habit.

I type at around 80 wpm tho :D

[JunkYard]

It is condescending, by it's very definition. You view yourself to have something that i don't, and in turn, you have the best prize, so to speak.

There's nothing for me to "find". I'm not lost.

I have something that very few have, but it's not because I am favored over you or anyone else; I merely wanted what I knew I was without. It wasn't until I gained that which I was without, until I realized that all mankind is "lost". Sounds a bit condescending perhaps, but only because 'you' perceive it to be.

I'm no better than you, Hardcore, when we claim to be better than others, we become high minded, boastful, self-righteous, and overly prideful. This in turn creates a great conflict within us, and often times, damages the spirit of those we view as being less than ourselves. Every single person is an extension of God; we are what we were made to be.

Listen, God views us all in the same light and His love is offered to all mankind. The difference is that those who embrace, and abide in Godâ??s love, allow that love to guide them. Through that love, they become better able to free themselves from the forces that harm them inwardly. We should therefore, accept one another equally, keeping in mind that we all partake in the human experience, and that all are sinners. Absolute perfection is beyond any of us; we all fall short of his glory.

By understanding this truth, we allow ourselves to have empathy, as well as compassion towards those who are bound in the ways of darkness. We come to realizes that they are simply unaware of the freedom that comes from embracing the love, or spirit of God. When we do this, we become better able to forgive and accept no matter where others are in life, and no matter how much we feel weâ??ve been wronged. We also become better able to forgive ourselves when we slip and do wrong to others, as we all do.

We wrestle against our own human natures, and the human nature of others. We wrestle against the spiritual forces of darkness that have rule and authority over us naturally. We wrestle against the powers that bind mankind in spirit. We wrestle against anger, bitterness, un-forgiveness, greed, lust, contempt, jealousy, envy, pride , fear, and every other spiritual force that destroys the inner man. These are the very roots of sin, through which every act against our Lord, ourselves, and our neighbors are committed.

This is why we are lost, Hardcore. We all wrestle with these 'spiritual chains', but these can be overcome through Christ and His Love. Think for one moment what life would be like without even the remnant of love we do know. I can only imagine the horror, and emptiness, and hopelessness such a life would entail. Love is mankindâ??s comfort, it is our safety, our peace, and our life force. Without it, this world would be a very dark, lonely, and empty place to dwell. It would be as if we were in a grave, rotting and decaying without hope of ever sustaining life at all. The term â??hell â?? might be appropriate to describe such an existence, or state of mind reflecting the darkness of the grave, where we are no longer capable to realize the Love of our God. The truth is that even with the remnant of love we do know, most are still in a metaphorical grave, unaware of the blessings that Godâ??s love provides.

There are some, who have experienced so little love in their lives, that they do not recognize what it is at all. This is a sad truth that we cannot close our eyes to. Without love mankind is lost; we cannot be free from our metaphorical â??gravesâ?� until we allow love to mature within us. Love must be cultivated as if it were a seed, with patience, sincerity, and faith. When we do this, and keep our hearts focused on it, we grow stronger in Godâ??s grace. This in turn creates a great sense of freedom, joy, and peace within ourselves. We must learn to cultivate love, and also plant it in others, bringing its increase in the world we live in. This is the Christian Charge. Although, it is seen in few.

Once you realize the freedom and the finding, you want others to experience it as well. Only with a pure love from the Father can we acheive this state of peace.


Junk


p.s sorry bout the length, bro. :D

[natureisawesome]

junkyard said:


Absolute perfection is beyond any of us; we all fall short of his glory.

Then why would Jesus tell us to be?


Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

It's Gods grace that works in us and gives us the power to overcome sin. Those that walk by the Spirit will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Also,


Romans 7:16-18 (King James Version)

10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do


16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

The bible teaches that those those are saved are no longer in sin as long as they walk by the spirit. But the flesh is corrupt, and so we war and struggle with the flesh and perservere until the end, when we will be freed from this body of death.


Romans 7:21-25

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I have something that very few have, but it's not because I am favored over you or anyone else; I merely wanted what I knew I was without. It wasn't until I gained that which I was without, until I realized that all mankind is "lost". Sounds a bit condescending perhaps, but only because 'you' perceive it to be.

I'm no better than you, Hardcore, when we claim to be better than others, we become high minded, boastful, self-righteous, and overly prideful. This in turn creates a great conflict within us, and often times, damages the spirit of those we view as being less than ourselves. Every single person is an extension of God; we are what we were made to be.You don't have to be "better" than someone to be condescending. All you need is a perceived advantage. that perceived advantage would be salvation.


Listen, God views us all in the same light and His love is offered to all mankind. The difference is that those who embrace, and abide in Godâ??s love, allow that love to guide them. Through that love, they become better able to free themselves from the forces that harm them inwardly. We should therefore, accept one another equally, keeping in mind that we all partake in the human experience, and that all are sinners. Absolute perfection is beyond any of us; we all fall short of his glory.
I don't believe in sin. And I don't accept others equally. I see no reason to. I generally love people, but if you do things that I'd consider immoral, then you don't deserve my love. But, to those people, they don't care for my love in the first place.


By understanding this truth, we allow ourselves to have empathy, as well as compassion towards those who are bound in the ways of darkness. We come to realizes that they are simply unaware of the freedom that comes from embracing the love, or spirit of God. When we do this, we become better able to forgive and accept no matter where others are in life, and no matter how much we feel weâ??ve been wronged. We also become better able to forgive ourselves when we slip and do wrong to others, as we all do.I rarely feel wronged, so I guess I don't see this need for forgiving others at all costs, because I rarely have to forgive anyone in the first place. I've surrounded myself with people (by chance, are mostly agnostics and atheists, oddly enough) who are good, we don't need God to be civil toward one another. We care for each other because we care for each other, not because we're enlightened by an outside source.


We wrestle against our own human natures, and the human nature of others. We wrestle against the spiritual forces of darkness that have rule and authority over us naturally. We wrestle against the powers that bind mankind in spirit. We wrestle against anger, bitterness, un-forgiveness, greed, lust, contempt, jealousy, envy, pride , fear, and every other spiritual force that destroys the inner man. These are the very roots of sin, through which every act against our Lord, ourselves, and our neighbors are committed.Who is this 'we' that you describe? these feelings are things that I can honestly say I rarely feel. A fear of heights, maybe, but that's about it. I don't wrestle with any of that, ever. I can honestly say that I get mad about once every two years, have never felt jealousy, I'm decently humble (except when describing my humbleness), I don't lust.... This list of things you describe is nearly alien to me. I understand why some people can feel them, but it just doesn't happen to me. So I fail to see why I need God to rid myself of any of these feelings when i don't get them.



Once you realize the freedom and the finding, you want others to experience it as well. Only with a pure love from the Father can we acheive this state of peace.


Junk


p.s sorry bout the length, bro. :DI have freedom. I want others to experience a life with only good emotions, as i do, they don't need God to do it either, they just have to realize that these emotions do no good.

And don't worry about the length of the post, it's only scripture that I dread reading, unless it's with my family. they've earned the time that i spend reading scripture with them. So while I don't agree with it, or even some of the messages, I enjoy reading with them. Much of my family desperately want me to believe, so seeing me read the bible puts a smile on their face, which makes me happy in turn.

[JunkYard]

junkyard said:



Then why would Jesus tell us to be?



It's Gods grace that works in us and gives us the power to overcome sin. Those that walk by the Spirit will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Also,



The bible teaches that those those are saved are no longer in sin as long as they walk by the spirit. But the flesh is corrupt, and so we war and struggle with the flesh and perservere until the end, when we will be freed from this body of death.

First, if you think that you can live a perfect life and "Never" even stumble then you are sadly mistaken. It is our curse and who we are. Yes, Jesus tells to be perfect, but this does not mean a literal perfection. We are made clean through Him, and through the spirit. A washing if you will, a spiritual baptism. This is the gift of salvation.


Junk

[JunkYard]

You don't have to be "better" than someone to be condescending. All you need is a perceived advantage. that perceived advantage would be salvation.


I don't believe in sin. And I don't accept others equally. I see no reason to. I generally love people, but if you do things that I'd consider immoral, then you don't deserve my love. But, to those people, they don't care for my love in the first place.

I rarely feel wronged, so I guess I don't see this need for forgiving others at all costs, because I rarely have to forgive anyone in the first place. I've surrounded myself with people (by chance, are mostly agnostics and atheists, oddly enough) who are good, we don't need God to be civil toward one another. We care for each other because we care for each other, not because we're enlightened by an outside source.

Who is this 'we' that you describe? these feelings are things that I can honestly say I rarely feel. A fear of heights, maybe, but that's about it. I don't wrestle with any of that, ever. I can honestly say that I get mad about once every two years, have never felt jealousy, I'm decently humble (except when describing my humbleness), I don't lust.... This list of things you describe is nearly alien to me. I understand why some people can feel them, but it just doesn't happen to me. So I fail to see why I need God to rid myself of any of these feelings when i don't get them.

I have freedom. I want others to experience a life with only good emotions, as i do, they don't need God to do it either, they just have to realize that these emotions do no good.

And don't worry about the length of the post, it's only scripture that I dread reading, unless it's with my family. they've earned the time that i spend reading scripture with them. So while I don't agree with it, or even some of the messages, I enjoy reading with them. Much of my family desperately want me to believe, so seeing me read the bible puts a smile on their face, which makes me happy in turn.

It sounds like you're very similar to how I was a couple yeras ago, hardcore. I still submit that all men are equal, tho. Do you feel like you are above others? Below? You never feel aggression, envy, bitterness, contempt? Maybe you're already where you need to be, then?

:D

[natureisawesome]

H.b. said:


I rarely feel wronged, so I guess I don't see this need for forgiving others at all costs, because I rarely have to forgive anyone in the first place. I've surrounded myself with people (by chance, are mostly agnostics and atheists, oddly enough) who are good, we don't need God to be civil toward one another. We care for each other because we care for each other, not because we're enlightened by an outside source.

It's just like it says in scripture,




Luke 6:32-34

32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Everyone has thier own set of rules.Everyone has thier own "love". But God's ules arn't mans rules and God's love isn't mans love.

And of course I don't believe you're being honest with yourself. ANd no one can prove your conscience to you but yourself.

[Hardcore Newbie]

It sounds like you're very similar to how I was a couple yeras ago, hardcore. I still submit that all men are equal, tho. Do you feel like you are above others? Below? You never feel aggression, envy, bitterness, contempt? Maybe you're already where you need to be, then?

:DIt depends on what you mean by 'above'. I'm happy that I love my life, maybe more so than others. If this makes me above someone else than so be it.

I feel aggressive when I'm being competitive. Only in sport, never in life.
My dad in particular wonders why I don't search for a higher paying job so I can get the nice things in life. I tell him I already have the nice things.
Bitter... contempt? about what? I have nothing to be bitter about or contempt anyone.

I know I'm already where I need to be, which is why I find the need for god talk... almost silly. I know that I'm not lost, so when people talk as if I (or anyone else without god) am lost, I have a hard time believing what they say. The idea that without God you are missing something is truly ridiculous in my eyes, and very pre-judgemental as well. It's a very weird viewpoint to me.

Imagine if i were to tell you that the only way to truly be happy was to learn French (not that I'm very good at it, just as an example). You'd think I was off my rocker :p You'd see no reason for it. And if I told you that you'd be lost without it, that it's the only way you'd find happiness, and the only way you'd ever realize it were to learn French and experience it for yourself. And if I passed it off as fact, and spoke about it with such certainty, over and over, it might be a little patronizing.

So I hope that you now see what I mean when I say that certain comments about being lost are condescending :)

[natureisawesome]

Junkyard said:

First, if you think that you can live a perfect life and "Never" even stumble then you are sadly mistaken. It is our curse and who we are. Yes, Jesus tells to be perfect, but this does not mean a literal perfection. We are made clean through Him, and through the spirit. A washing if you will, a spiritual baptism. This is the gift of salvation.
If I sin, it isn't me that that sins but my flesh in it death throes.


1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

We have God's grace and abide in God's love by abiding in him. But to abide in him, we must keep his commandments.



John 15:9

9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.

It is literal when he says BE perfect just as the father is perfect. It means DO
That's the very context of the chapter. Do righteousness, and be perfect.




Mathew 5:39-48

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Everyone has thier own set of rules.Everyone has thier own "love". But God's ules arn't mans rules and God's love isn't mans love.

And of course I don't believe you're being honest with yourself. ANd no one can prove your conscience to you but yourself.I'm being totally honest with myself. What's so hard to believe about a man that realizes that these emotions aren't good things? I realized this at a young age. I also never feel stress, something else I find to be a negative. But it's weird. it's not like I feel myself feeling these things, realizing i don't want them, and then pushing them aside. they never surface in the first place.

If you don't believe me, that's fine. But why should I listen to a man that doesn't even trust me to be honest, even if it's only with myself? I have no reason to lie to you, nor myself. It serves no purpose.

edit* I also think it's odd that "of course [you] don't believe [me]". What's so "of course" about it that you can't believe me?

[natureisawesome]

H.b. said:


he idea that without God you are missing something

Being without God isn't missing anything??


Imagine if i were to tell you that the only way to truly be happy was to learn French

You're comparing God to learning french???

Slow down H.b., you're about to take this discussion to another level.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Being without God isn't missing anything??
Correct.

You're comparing God to learning french???

Slow down H.b., you're about to take this discussion to another level.in a way yes. I'm just trying to show you how silly it looks to me to tell me that I'm lost because I don't have God. By your reaction, it seems that the comparison did exactly what it was intended to do.

Edit* Just wondering, where are you getting h.b from? I *just* noticed now :p

[JunkYard]

It depends on what you mean by 'above'. I'm happy that I love my life, maybe more so than others. If this makes me above someone else than so be it.

I feel aggressive when I'm being competitive. Only in sport, never in life.
My dad in particular wonders why I don't search for a higher paying job so I can get the nice things in life. I tell him I already have the nice things.
Bitter... contempt? about what? I have nothing to be bitter about or contempt anyone.

I know I'm already where I need to be, which is why I find the need for god talk... almost silly. I know that I'm not lost, so when people talk as if I (or anyone else without god) am lost, I have a hard time believing what they say. The idea that without God you are missing something is truly ridiculous in my eyes, and very pre-judgemental as well. It's a very weird viewpoint to me.

Imagine if i were to tell you that the only way to truly be happy was to learn French (not that I'm very good at it, just as an example). You'd think I was off my rocker :p You'd see no reason for it. And if I told you that you'd be lost without it, that it's the only way you'd find happiness, and the only way you'd ever realize it were to learn French and experience it for yourself. And if I passed it off as fact, and spoke about it with such certainty, over and over, it might be a little patronizing.

So I hope that you now see what I mean when I say that certain comments about being lost are condescending :)

I think condescending might be a wrong term here. I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel superior to anyone. I view everyone in equal terms. We are all human, we all make mistakes, and we all need love. This is where God comes in, bro. (God is Love) Most of us have experienced only remnants of love. Meaning we have only known love in measure, whether it came from family or from friends. Very few of us however, know and understand the power of Godâ??s Love, and what His grace can do for us.

If you feel satisfied, who am I to doubt you, Hardcore? I think the most important thing is to just be honest with yourself. Not that you're not being honest. You seem to be a geniune person, sincere, hopeful, and you have a calm about you that is quite refreshing.

I was merely attempting to help you understand my side of the fence, so that you might be better equipped if you ever earnestly gave God a chance. Christ tells us to enter in at the strait gate. I personally believe that love is that gate, and Christ the gatekeeper.

Much Love


Junk

[JunkYard]

It is literal when he says BE perfect just as the father is perfect. It means DO
That's the very context of the chapter. Do righteousness, and be perfect.

Exactly, do as Christ commands with all your heart follow him. but don't suggest that we can even come close to a literal perfection in this life and world we live in. All fall short of God's glory, none are good but the father.

We can keep our minds on his love, and keep is spirit churning within us, but we are sinners mate. Sorry to burst your bubble.

It almost reminds me of the humble publican:

The publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


Junk

[natureisawesome]

Oh yeah, sorry about messing up the name Hardcore newbie. It says new-bee, so that just kind of stuck in my head.

I dare ask, who is kimbo peppers?

[Hardcore Newbie]

I think condescending might be a wrong term here. I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel superior to anyone. I view everyone in equal terms. We are all human, we all make mistakes, and we all need love. This is where God comes in, bro. (God is Love) Most of us have experienced only remnants of love. Meaning we have only known love in measure, whether it came from family or from friends. Very few of us however, know and understand the power of Godâ??s Love, and what His grace can do for us. Again, a condescending doesn't necessarily mean the person thinks they're above someone else, just that they have an advantage.

How would you describe the person who tells you the you need French? It looks like I need a different word that better suits what I'm trying to say.



If you feel satisfied, who am I to doubt you, Hardcore? I think the most important thing is to just be honest with yourself. Not that you're not being honest. You seem to be a geniune person, sincere, hopeful, and you have a calm about you that is quite refreshing.

I was merely attempting to help you understand my side of the fence, so that you might be better equipped if you ever earnestly gave God a chance. Christ tells us to enter in at the strait gate. I personally believe that love is that gate, and Christ the gatekeeper.

Much Love


JunkThanks. Again for a comparison, but not meant to offend, for me to give god a chance would be like rearranging my life to fit a lie that I don't believe in. There are many things in the bible that I disagree with. Some things just seem too far fetched for me to take seriously. The Xian God is really the only God I know anything about, besides a bit of greek mythology and other historical religions.

If it's only about love, count me in. But to go against my mind to fit a God into my life which I personally can not see, have no evidence of, and frankly I don't even believe exists, it does nothing for me. it doesn't match my love. (I know NiA, I know, God's love is different than man's love)

[natureisawesome]

Junkyard,

I know this might sound different to you, but I'm not a sinner. A sinner is a person who sins. The bible on several occasions makes this distinction, both in the the new and old testament. :


1 Peter 4:18
And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

and others.

The point is, yes we stumble but I don't sin anymore. It's my flesh that's doing it, and I'm fighting against it.

In any case, this thread is starting to get off topic junkyard, and if you want we can continue this elsewhere but I want this thread to focus on the topic I started it for.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Oh yeah, sorry about messing up the name Hardcore newbie. It says new-bee, so that just kind of stuck in my head.

I dare ask, who is kimbo peppers?Ahhh, I was just wondering the thought process.

And Kimbo Peppers is a combination of Brian Peppers and Kimbo Slice.

Both of these people are very popular avatars on another message board I go to about mixed martial arts fighting, so I combined the two to make the most ultimate popular avatar ever. Everyone who sees it on the other site laughs their ass off because I've combined the two most popular avatars, but it loses some of it's flair on this site. Only two people that I know of even knew who these people were :p

[natureisawesome]

SO I have a question to get back to the topic.

What good reason does anyone have to doubt they exist?

[Hardcore Newbie]

SO I have a question to get back to the topic.

What good reason does anyone have to doubt they exist?
*they*? Kimbo and Peppers? :p j/k

the fact that god created adam and eve without knowledge, so without knowledge they can't make sound judgement. so when they disobey god, god was displeased and now the only way into forgiveness is to believe in him and accept him into your heart (by whichever method), and if not you get the razz (polite way of saying "go to hell")? Seems kinda... made up to me.

And it's not a post from me if i don't mention talking animals :)

[natureisawesome]

Hardcore Newbie said:


the fact that god created adam and eve without knowledge, so without knowledge they can't make sound judgement.

they knew enough not to eat from the tree.

[natureisawesome]

I'm done with this thread for tonight. I'll come back when my brain (and everyone elses") hasgotten some sleep.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I'm done with this thread for tonight. I'll come back when my brain (and everyone elses") hasgotten some sleep.I'm only up because I'm doing tonnes of laundry. I live in an apartment, so the laundromat downstairs never has anyone there this late at night.... or early in the morning :P Perfect time to do laundry :D

[imitator]

SO I have a question to get back to the topic.

What good reason does anyone have to doubt they exist?

About the same amount or reasons that we have to doubt that they dont exist.

The playing field is even, as far as I am concerned. Its a quagmire. No one can truely prove that god(s) exist with current evidence available, but no one can disprove it either. That is literally why the call it faith.

In my personal opinion, if a person is leading a good life, no matter in who's name it is in, then why should they change their life to fit another god(s) ways?

I think we can all agree, loosely, on the ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, morals if you will. Now I have heard it mentioned that God gave us these, but I have a statement, if you will, in regards to this...

YOUR God gave YOU those. Call it my "faith", or whatever you will, but I think that it is very assuming to assume that morals came from one source. Our society as a whole in this country, and the world itself as well, has adapted our moral stances many many times, and will continue to do so. Chrisitian God may have given you your morals, and of that I do not doubt. The bible may have helped shaped current morals, but I believe that morals go above god(s). If god(s) do exist, our freewill was the greatest gift that they gave us. And in that freewill they gave us the ability to have morals, and let those morals be whatever we wish, as a part of our freewill. It doesnt mean that god doesnt have his set rules of whats good and bad, but they let us choose what we ourselves feel is good and bad.

Quick slightly over-exaggerated for the point example... Stealing is considered bad, and is stated so in the bible, correct? What about stealing to feed your family? What about stealing to save a life? What about stealing to protect the person whom you stole from? So many nuances, that can never fully be covered by any rules laid down in a book or by a god. Do you just go with the blanket ruling that stealing is bad, and leave it at that? Or do YOU have specific things out of that list that you feel is ok considering the circumstances? Things like that take consideration of the entire event, not just the one damning part of it, and its our freewill that lets US decide what we feel is right and wrong as a whole, and as an individual, even if a god(s) may have given the original ruleset to play by.

If you ever get a chance natureisawesome, I recommend reading through a few other religious texts, and to take the time to notice the similarities and differences in the "rules" of all of them. You would be shocked at how similar, yet so dis-similar they can be. It also helps put things in perspective, and to allow you to see where others are coming from who follow such religions. THe bible made more sense, on certain levels, after having read through the Qur'an and the big Buddhist texts(Four Noble Truth's, Noble Eightfold Path, the precepts), then it did before. Things just came into a bigger perspective, if you get what I am saying.

IDK, you might enjoy it, you might not, but I always think that full understanding of something you believe in is important, otherwise you may find you are following nothing but lies, or have misunderstood/interpretted something critical.

[natureisawesome]

This is from a post a way back I overlooked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
You don't need to see a miracle to recognize God's existence. You don't have to see a miracle to recognize God's nature. If you did, then god definitely would show you a miracle. Since you don't need to be shown a miracle, and it's required that man shall live by faith then you're excuseless and you're only testing God. The evidence to recognize God isn't something real hard to grasp. It's everywhere and so plain and obvious that it's insulting to ask to see a miracle. People tell themselves they can't see it and they don't. They choose to have no faith.


Harcore Newbie:

What's so insulting about wanting to see a miracle? I can say the exact opposite that you just said, and I'd be just as right. You're stating opinions. Besides, you say god is all powerful, so it literally takes *nothing* for him to show me. I've already an open invitation to any God, god, deity or anything of the like to have a conversation with me. No takers so far (besides Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course).

I just told you what's so insulting about It. You don't need it and you're testing God. No that's not an opinion that's what God's word says.


Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
With the information there is to know about God, it's enough to have faith. You don't need the bible to know there's the all loving God in the bible. And why aren't you as suspicious about all history? Do you know there wasn't a talking donkey? I know I can't prove something i can't show you, but at the same time you have no way of knowing and the possibility still lies open there could be one in the past. So take care to recognize your bias.

Harcore newbie:

Do I know there wasn't a talking donkey? No, of course not, it's impossible to prove that something DIDN'T HAPPEN. I realize that nearly anything is possible (which I state clearly and often). if I'm biased for living in reality and realize the possibility of a talking donkey is highly unlikely, then call me bias.

Well yes I am going by God's word and record. And that is proven True. I don't believe anything is possible. I go with the evidence. It's not highly unlikely. And how can you judge what is more likely or not, if anything is possible??


h.n.:



I'll ask you a few questions about a talking donkey. Do you believe that a donkey has ever spoken? And if so, why aren't you be suspicious? If you're not suspicious, would you believe me if I told you that my dog told me that god doesn't exist?

Yes i believe that a talking donkey spake. I'd have to check out and compare that to what we know about the universe and everything we know and see if it can be verified.



I'm not suspicious of most history because unlike a talking donkey, it's.... what's the word.... believable. The only other books I've read with talking animals were called fairy tales.

I think universe and nature and all creation being as amazing as it is is many many times more miraculous and amazing than a talking donkey.



Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Not just values and beliefs. Ultimate values. Spiritual Truth. I don't believe that our feelings are in our brains of course. I think there's a good deal to show this is true. Also, something I've noticed. Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel real deeply about somethings, like if you feel very strongly towards a girl of if you're in emotional pain it hurts right in your heart, I mean your physical heart.

Nope. I get mine in the gut. More assumptions.

That may be so, but that doesn't invalidate what I said. I know some people get it in the gut and in both sides of the chest but generally it's around that area. I think actually the heart thing I mentioned happens to everyone but may not remember. Different parts of our bodies feel differently under different emotions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
I find that interesting and I'm not saying the physical heart can feel, but I've thought about it and if there's a designer I think that would be the perfect place to make that connection you know? from the spiritual heart to the beating heart? we we think of the beating of the physical heart, it's very representative of what we recognize as our heart, our center of feeling and of sentient perception.

All subjective. I'd say the perfect places for love would be in the genitals or the fingers. It's just my view of the world.

You can't be serious. I'd like to hear this one, perhaps. As long as it's not dirty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

I don't care what the definition of humanism is. You stated that atheists subscribe to humanism. A very blanket statement used so that you can further your points.

Humanism or atheism the point I made applies to both of them. But humanism is an organized religion. And don't say they're not, because they admit it themselves


Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Logically, atheists have to provide a moral code from outside of their belief system which which can't provide any. Richard Dawkins even claimed that he was a passionate Darwinist as to how we got here, but a passionate anti-Darwinist when it came to morality.

Logically, atheists (or anybody, really) don't *have* to do anything. Each person is an individual. What does richard dawkins have to do with anyone else as a person? he's a famous atheist? Big deal, he doesn't speak for every atheist on the planet.

If people don't have to do anything then why do we feel it neccesary to have a government to keep things in order? And why in a democracy do they feel the need to have control over others to establish why they think is right? Obviously they are using they're pushing thier moral choice on others as Truth we're all accountable to , but when confronted then it's everybody's own choice and we all have different personal standards. Like I said, lots of people define love differently, but everyone (just about) believes in Love. Can anyone say they hate love??


Also, some people may be immoral by my standard, but not by their own. So *logically*, nobody on the face of the earth is required to provide their moral code.

So then it's not wrong for them if they rob and murder you if they feel "justified"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Here's what can happen when angry and hurt people believe there is no standard of morality, that they can make their own rules:

Hardcore newbie:

I could throw up a link to the spanish inquisition and use that of my basis to describe anyone who is religious anyone believes in a higher power, and what they do when they think their morality is being guided by a higher power. it serves no purpose.

Wrong. Because the point is that the ideology they learned from the world taught them that that was ok . Christian doctrine doesn't teach people to do things like the spanish inquisition. Trust me, I hate the roman catholic church more than you do .

[natureisawesome]

Jamstigator said:


'Faith' is just a nicer word for 'assume'. If you have faith in something for which there is no evidence (e.g., something that can be replicated by others and produces consistent results), then you are just assuming that what you've been told (or what you feel) is the truth. Truth should never be assumed. Question everything, and demand evidence. This is how we stopped thinking that God makes meteor storms to punish the wicked or that women who can swim must be witches.

I wish you would realize that evidence is in the eye of the beholder. And the truth is I don't think that you need to assume anything to know that you're thinking.


250 years ago, if they threw you in the river and you *didn't* drown, they burned you, because they had faith that this was God's will, to burn witches, and they had faith that you *were* a witch if you didn't drown, thus making burning the skin from your bones the 'right' and 'moral' thing to do. These are the roads down which faith takes people. Much of the world has outgrown such superstitious nonsense, but it is thriving in the U.S.

Once again, the religion is blamed for something it doesn't teach. But what about other ideologies/religions? I think yes.



Faith in the Islamic model of life and of the afterlife is what drives virtually all the suicide bombings in the world today. They have faith that *their* beliefs are right and yours are wrong. You have faith that they're wrong and you're right. If everyone would just stop with the assumptions and start asking for demonstrable proof, violence would go way way down.

I think evolution is the main factor why there has been more war in this past century. I'm not sure, but I think there's been more war in this century than any in history. Is it the teachings of Jesus that caused hitler to adopt a master race ideology and the rest of it? How about Pol Pot? Or stalin? Or many others. It's evolution that's the foundation for these evil ideologies.

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
That's..I can't believe you are saying that.

Entropy is a measure of a a sytems unavailability to do work. The energy available in our universe to do work is being lost...I just don't understand how you can say that. That's totally wrong. I'm seriously baffled, like ..

Things don't naturally become more complex by the 2nd law. They become less complex. Period.

" The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. "

I'm tired of arguing about whether things are closed or not closed. It's irrelevent. There are not exceptions to the second law.

Yes our bodies do harness energy from food, and complex machinery is required to do this.

Staurm said:


Again you choose to employ mechanistic terminology.

I'm not saying it is the second law which causes things to become more complex, its quasi-equilibrium, as I have already indicated. Dissipative structures defy the 2nd law by forming into structures which harness the flow of enery through them, in the same way an organism does, or a planetary biosphere such as the earth. This requires the harnessing structure to be closed, but at the same time open to a flow of energy through it.

It was you who said the second law causes things to become more complex, you are confusing order with disorder, perhaps unintentionally. Either way what you said about entropy and life was fundamentally incorrect.

I got around to doing a little study on what staurm is talking about and it's this new hypothesis called chaos theory.

It's supposed to find order out of disorder. It's obviously something devopeloped to try to overcome the challanges of chemical evolution. Chaos theory is about the discovery of the unsuspected patterns of harmony and beauty in apparently chaotic systems. for instance
there is believed to be a superstructure of some predictability in the otherwise unpredictable behaviour of water flowing turbulently.

It has buzz words like "fractals," "bifurcation," "the butterfly effect," "strange attractors," and "dissipative structures,". It supporters are claiming it to be as important as quantum physics or reletivity. as a widely read popularization of chaos studies puts it: "Where chaos begins, classical science stops" (Chaos-Making a New Science) .


There are many phenomena which depend on so many variables as to defy description in terms of quantitative mathematics. Yet such systemsâ??things like the turbulent hydraulics of a waterfallâ??do seem to exhibit some kind of order in their apparently chaotic tumbling, and chaos theory has been developed to try to quantify the order in this chaos...

...The discovery that there may still be some underlying orderâ??instead of complete randomnessâ??in chaotic systems is, of course, still perfectly consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. The trouble is that many wishful thinkers in this field have started assuming that chaos can also somehow generate higher orderâ??evolution in particular. This idea is being hailed as the solution to the problem of how the increasing complexity required by evolution could overcome the disorganizing process demanded by entropy. The famous second law of thermodynamicsâ??also called the law of increasing entropyâ??notes that every systemâ??whether closed or openâ??at least tends to decay. The universe itself is "running down," heading toward an ultimate "heat death," and this has heretofore been an intractable problem for evolutionists...


Basically all of this is based upon some some scientist named Prigogine .He argued (mathematically, not experimentally) that systems that were far from equilibrium, with a high flow-through of energy, could produce a higher degree of order.


Capra elaborates further:


In classical thermodynamics, the dissipation of energy in heat transfer, friction, and the like was always associated with waste. Prigogine's concept of a dissipative structure introduced a radical change in this view by showing that in open systems dissipation becomes a source of order.10

The fact is, however, that except in the very weak sense, Prigogine has not shown that dissipation of energy in an open system produces order. In the chaotic behavior of a system in which a very large energy dissipation is taking place, certain temporary structures (he calls them "dissipative structures") form and then soon decay. They have never been shownâ??even mathematicallyâ??to reproduce themselves or to generate still higher degrees of order....

...He used the example of small vortices in a cup of hot coffee. A similar example would be the much larger "vortex" in a tornado or hurricane. These might be viewed as "structures" and to appear to be "ordered," but they are soon gone. What they leave in their wake is not a higher degree of organized complexity, but a higher degree of dissipation and disorganization.

And yet evolutionists are now arguing that such chaos somehow generates a higher stage of evolution! Prigogine has even co-authored a book entitled Order Out of Chaos.


In far from equilibrium conditions, we may have transformation from disorder, from thermal chaos, into order.11...

...Not even the first, and absolutely critical, step in the evolutionary processâ??that of the self-organization of non-living molecules into self-replicating moleculesâ??can be explained in this way. Prigogine admits:


The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.12...

...He then makes the naive claim that, since life "appeared" on Earth very early in geologic history, it must have been (!) "the result of spontaneous self-organization." But he acknowledges some uncertainty about this remarkable conclusion.

However, we must admit that we remain far from any quantitative theory.13..

With regard to the claim that the "order" appearing in fractals somehow contributes to evolution, a new book devoted to what the author is pleased to call "the science of self-organized criticality," we note the following admission:


In the popular literature, one finds the subjects of chaos and fractal geometry linked together again and again, despite the fact that they have little to do with each other.... In short, chaos theory cannot explain complexity.14

The strange idea is currently being widely promoted that, in the assumed four-billion-year history of life on the earth, evolution has proceeded by means of long periods of stasis, punctuated by brief periods of massive extinctions. Then rapid evolutionary emergence of organisms of higher complexity came out of the chaotic milieu causing the extinction.


On the one hand, a catastrophic extinction of global biotas might negate the effectiveness of many survival mechanisms which evolved during background conditions. Simultaneously, such a crisis might eliminate genetically and ecologically diverse taxa worldwide. Only a few species would be expected to survive and seed subsequent evolutionary radiations. This scenario requires high levels of macroevolution and explosive radiation to account for the recovery of basic ecosystems within 1-2 my after Phanerozoic mass extinctions.15

Such notions come not from any empirical evidence but solely from philosophical speculations based on lack of evidence! "Since there is no evidence that evolution proceeded gradually, it must have occurred chaotically!" This seems to be the idea.

If one wants to believe by blind faith that order can arise spontaneously from chaos, it is still a free country. But please don't call it science!



So they've found some patterns in the interactions in nature. That's basically it. And it's not proven and it still doesn't overcome the second law. Oh, and that scientist Prigogine hasn't done any real experiements, it all mathmatical and philosophical. He hasn't been in a laboratory for years.


However, the type of â??orderâ?? (patterning would be a better word) which can be explained mathematically more readily by these principlesâ??the ripple patterns in sand dunes, whirlpools in flowing water, and fascinating surrealistic shapes on computer screens, is of a different dimension entirely from information-bearing chemical sequences that characterize living things..

..Even Ilya Prigogine, who received a Nobel Prize for work on the problem of trying to relate the formation of such things as whirlpools from energy flow to the origin of life, has admitted that he cannot use his â??non-equilibrium dissipative structuresâ?? to explain the origin of even the simplest living thing....

..Chaos theory may be wrongly named, anyhowâ??it actually proceeds on very complex non-linear statistical laws! ..

..No-one has ever seen, or is likely to see, machine functions or project-oriented programs arise from any sort of chaos. The Second Law is not rendered insecure nor denied by â??chaos physicsâ??...

So the actual evidece shows that the second law holds true. And Staurm is trying to redefine complexity. The order that comes out of such structures of apparent chaos are not like the order and complexity in living things. Totally different. Opposite direction.

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry (http://www.icr.org/article/819/)

Chaos physics: an escape route for evolution? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i4/chaos.asp)

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
SO I have a question to get back to the topic.

What good reason does anyone have to doubt they exist?

About the same amount or reasons that we have to doubt that they dont exist.

No way. There are 0 good reasons to doubt your existance. We see the evidence for God and stability and reality and love all around us and in us.


The playing field is even, as far as I am concerned. Its a quagmire. No one can truely prove that god(s) exist with current evidence available, but no one can disprove it either. That is literally why the call it faith.

It's like you just totally ignored all the evidence I've pointed out.


In my personal opinion, if a person is leading a good life, no matter in who's name it is in, then why should they change their life to fit another god(s) ways?

Because you can't have a good life without God.


And in that freewill they gave us the ability to have morals, and let those morals be whatever we wish, as a part of our freewill. It doesnt mean that god doesnt have his set rules of whats good and bad, but they let us choose what we ourselves feel is good and bad.

But there has to be spiritual standard to say this is right or this is wrong. If God's morality and ours contradict, we're wrong. And most people would never put that philosophy that you mentied above to practice in real life. Without Spiritual truth good or bad is meaningless.


Quick slightly over-exaggerated for the point example... Stealing is considered bad, and is stated so in the bible, correct? What about stealing to feed your family? What about stealing to save a life? What about stealing to protect the person whom you stole from? So many nuances, that can never fully be covered by any rules laid down in a book or by a god. Do you just go with the blanket ruling that stealing is bad, and leave it at that? Or do YOU have specific things out of that list that you feel is ok considering the circumstances?

It's not right to steal from others. But what if someone's value system told them it was fine to steal from you? How would you like that? Stealing by defenition is taking something not rightfully yours to take. So it's always wrong.

[snowblind]

hi, before i add my opinion on god, the universe, life, cheese grills.

id like a ceationist or 'intelligent deisnist' which is funny cus thats on a car add in the uk, views on dinosaurs ?

why did god create them before man ?
then why did he let them die out?
was he just messing around before he wanted us around?
where they his mistakes ?

ok here's my 2 cents

i think god is just the universe personified and that the universe is god sterilised.

and there is probably a happy medium. omnipotent sentient beings, meta physical beings, life forces, something, a soul if you like to the void of space that we rotate in.

that about 99 % of the three core religions are rehtoric, fables and added/edited bits.

ala church of england, created so henry the viii could divorce.

then to that 1% id add eastern philospoies about mind, spirit and body, and the earth.

add in a bit of nural kinetics

add in a bit of luck

boil with lots of love

and in about 24 hours you've got the essence of my theologies on religon, spirituality and life

but yeah dinosaurs please

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
SO I have a question to get back to the topic.

What good reason does anyone have to doubt they exist?

About the same amount or reasons that we have to doubt that they dont exist.

No way. There are 0 good reasons to doubt your existance. We see the evidence for God and stability and reality and love all around us and in us.


The playing field is even, as far as I am concerned. Its a quagmire. No one can truely prove that god(s) exist with current evidence available, but no one can disprove it either. That is literally why the call it faith.

It's like you just totally ignored all the evidence I've pointed out.


In my personal opinion, if a person is leading a good life, no matter in who's name it is in, then why should they change their life to fit another god(s) ways?

Because you can't have a good life without God.


And in that freewill they gave us the ability to have morals, and let those morals be whatever we wish, as a part of our freewill. It doesnt mean that god doesnt have his set rules of whats good and bad, but they let us choose what we ourselves feel is good and bad.

But there has to be spiritual standard to say this is right or this is wrong. If God's morality and ours contradict, we're wrong. And most people would never put that philosophy that you mentied above to practice in real life. Without Spiritual truth good or bad is meaningless.


Quick slightly over-exaggerated for the point example... Stealing is considered bad, and is stated so in the bible, correct? What about stealing to feed your family? What about stealing to save a life? What about stealing to protect the person whom you stole from? So many nuances, that can never fully be covered by any rules laid down in a book or by a god. Do you just go with the blanket ruling that stealing is bad, and leave it at that? Or do YOU have specific things out of that list that you feel is ok considering the circumstances?

It's not right to steal from others. But what if someone's value system told them it was fine to steal from you? How would you like that? Stealing by defenition is taking something not rightfully yours to take. So it's always wrong.


If you ever get a chance natureisawesome, I recommend reading through a few other religious texts, and to take the time to notice the similarities and differences in the "rules" of all of them. You would be shocked at how similar, yet so dis-similar they can be.

I'm quite aware of this. But the bottom line is justice and love are recognised by everyone. Everyone has their own twisted view of what that entails. It is also important to remember that culture that influences people's philosphy and morals shaped by people's behaviour. So it all comes around back circle.



IDK, you might enjoy it, you might not, but I always think that full understanding of something you believe in is important, otherwise you may find you are following nothing but lies, or have misunderstood/interpretted something critical.

We never start out with a full understanding. We grow and learn and our understanding grows. What's important is that you're honest and wise about what you have. It will grow in the right direction then and we will learn more only to learn more.

[natureisawesome]

whoops I posted that twice.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I just told you what's so insulting about It. You don't need it and you're testing God. No that's not an opinion that's what God's word says.

1 Corinthians
15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Matthew 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Is it out of context? Debatable. Jesus appeared to people after he died, to many people. I asketh, why do I not receiveth?

it's funny tho, how is it testing God, I'm just asking the guy for a conversation.




Well yes I am going by God's word and record. And that is proven True. I don't believe anything is possible. I go with the evidence. It's not highly unlikely. And how can you judge what is more likely or not, if anything is possible??
Well, it's possible that one day I'll go sky diving. highly unlikely, as I'm kind of scared of heights, but anything's possible.

I've never seen a talking donkey, nor has anyone I've known, nor anyone they've known, nor anyone they've known and so forth. The only people who see talking animals besides parrots are dreamers and skitzos. Why would i make a leap of faith, and go out of my way to believe in a talking donkey when it just doesn't make sense?


Yes i believe that a talking donkey spake. I'd have to check out and compare that to what we know about the universe and everything we know and see if it can be verified.

I think universe and nature and all creation being as amazing as it is is many many times more miraculous and amazing than a talking donkey.
There are too many stories in the Bible that seems contrived and not even well thought out.



That may be so, but that doesn't invalidate what I said. I know some people get it in the gut and in both sides of the chest but generally it's around that area. I think actually the heart thing I mentioned happens to everyone but may not remember. Different parts of our bodies feel differently under different emotions.Yeah, but without the brain you have no way to feel anything. you can feel without a heart. you probably wouldn't live longer than a few minutes without it, but it's not necessary for feelings.


You can't be serious. I'd like to hear this one, perhaps. As long as it's not dirty.
It's not dirty, but you might consider it to be so, so I'll spare the gory details. Just showing you it's a subjective opinion.


Humanism or atheism the point I made applies to both of them. But humanism is an organized religion. And don't say they're not, because they admit it themselvesHumanism, to my understanding, is the belief that we don't hinder our fellow men in against their will. if someone wants to call that a religion, be my guest, but not all people who subscribe to that line of thinking would consider it a religion. I don't.


If people don't have to do anything then why do we feel it neccesary to have a government to keep things in order? And why in a democracy do they feel the need to have control over others to establish why they think is right? Obviously they are using they're pushing thier moral choice on others as Truth we're all accountable to , but when confronted then it's everybody's own choice and we all have different personal standards. Like I said, lots of people define love differently, but everyone (just about) believes in Love. Can anyone say they hate love??
the idea of a democracy over millions and millions of people is ridiculous in the first place. There should only be four laws, Don't kill people, don't steal or take property, don't engage in fraud, and don't mess with children.

And I'm sure some people can say they've hate love, if they've had really bad experiences with it.


So then it's not wrong for them if they rob and murder you if they feel "justified"?
Of course it's wrong, I'm just saying no one on this earth is required to do anything.

I know the rebuttle, that if everyone believed in god and obeyed the commands then there'd be no problems. That's fine, but if everyone agreed that sacrificing your first born and hoping on your left foot for your entire life, then there would be no problems either, *because everyone agrees that these things aren't problems*. Would i want to live like that? no, but if i agreed with that, then I'd have no problem with it.



Wrong. Because the point is that the ideology they learned from the world taught them that that was ok . Christian doctrine doesn't teach people to do things like the spanish inquisition. Trust me, I hate the roman catholic church more than you do .

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Deuteronomy 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Nope, no gross or hideous commands from the bible, only the church.

[jamstigator]

I think we will all agree that there is no objective, repeatable test that can be done that proves there is a God. Were there such a test, it would've been performed many times by now across the world. I'd perform it myself just to be sure. I postulate that the reason for this lack is that there is, in fact, no God. Because there is no such test, religionists must always fall back on the tired, 'You have to *believe*' schtick.

I find it mildly offensive when someone tells me that they 'know' the truth about God, and at the very same time they cannot produce an objective, repeatable test that proves any such thing. You cannot *know* something for a certainty if it requires faith rather than evidence. You may *think* this or you may *think* that, but until there is evidence, nobody can *know*. Telling someone you've been told this or that or read this or that, and you believe it, despite lack of objective repeatable testing providing evidence, is in no way convincing, nor should it be.

But let's go back to the true human tails for a moment. (Yes, I find them fascinating.) Let's talk, in particular, about the ones that have multiple functioning vertebrae, blood vessels, skin cells, sweat glands, muscles that fit the tail perfectly and provide conscious control, and specialized sensory organs to detect pressure and vibration. According to some, genetic information can only be lost, never gained. Clearly, these tails are controlled by genetics, just as every part of our bodies are. So, this seems to me to leave only two possibilities:

1) The genetic information for the tail existed in the parents of the children born with them. (Makes sense, we get our eye and hair color, height, intelligence, etc from our parents, so why not this too.) If this possibility is the correct one, why would the parents be carrying around genetic information for tails, if we are created in God's image, and did not evolve from an ancestor with a tail?

2) Between the parents and the tailed children, genetic information to allow a complex and functioning limb such as a consciously controllable tail must have been acquired spontaneously, out of nowhere.

Neither possibility looks good for Creationism.

[natureisawesome]

I think we will all agree that there is no objective, repeatable test that can be done that proves there is a God. Were there such a test, it would've been performed many times by now across the world. I'd perform it myself just to be sure. I postulate that the reason for this lack is that there is, in fact, no God. Because there is no such test, religionists must always fall back on the tired, 'You have to *believe*' schtick.

I find it mildly offensive when someone tells me that they 'know' the truth about God, and at the very same time they cannot produce an objective, repeatable test that proves any such thing. You cannot *know* something for a certainty if it requires faith rather than evidence. You may *think* this or you may *think* that, but until there is evidence, nobody can *know*. Telling someone you've been told this or that or read this or that, and you believe it, despite lack of objective repeatable testing providing evidence, is in no way convincing, nor should it be.

But let's go back to the true human tails for a moment. (Yes, I find them fascinating.) Let's talk, in particular, about the ones that have multiple functioning vertebrae, blood vessels, skin cells, sweat glands, muscles that fit the tail perfectly and provide conscious control, and specialized sensory organs to detect pressure and vibration. According to some, genetic information can only be lost, never gained. Clearly, these tails are controlled by genetics, just as every part of our bodies are. So, this seems to me to leave only two possibilities:

1) The genetic information for the tail existed in the parents of the children born with them. (Makes sense, we get our eye and hair color, height, intelligence, etc from our parents, so why not this too.) If this possibility is the correct one, why would the parents be carrying around genetic information for tails, if we are created in God's image, and did not evolve from an ancestor with a tail?

2) Between the parents and the tailed children, genetic information to allow a complex and functioning limb such as a consciously controllable tail must have been acquired spontaneously, out of nowhere.

Neither possibility looks good for Creationism.


Jamstigator, why are you bringing this one up again? I already adressed this. It's a genetic mutation. A copying error. Some people pass mental retardation through thier heredity, that doesn't make it a leftover from evolution does it?

Well, now that I think of it they used to think this very same thing! They believed in the earlier part of the last century, that
mentally retarted people were a throwback to evolutiuon, and they wern't at the same "level" as modern man. Come to think of it, they thought the same thing about other people too. The Africans, the aboriginals, the latter were massacered all across the island and many were torn apart to get the bones and send back to England as evolutionary "evidence".

It was all based upon corrupt philosophy, faulty assumptions and judging only by appearance. Like I said, I had a freind who had stubs for fingers and they had nerves, skin, bone, fat, and nobody will say that that's from evolution. The human tails are copying errors or a result of damaged genes.

Yes there is a repeatable test that can be verified better than any normal empirical experiment. But it comes from within. Faith isn't blind, and it doesn't make baseless assumptions. God's eternal nature is there for your heart to reocgnise, and that encompasses all. And all the evidence of this world show the handiwork of a designer. The evidence of this world lead logically to recognise a God as necessary to sustain this world.


How would you like to see some good animal evidences of creation? How would you like that? Not that I need to show you any. It's there for everyone to see.

[natureisawesome]

Now I've re-affirmed the second law is a valid argument against evolution and there is no mechanism such as chaos theory to overcome it besides intelligence. Will someone please tell me then what keeps my original line of reasoning from being valid?

[jamstigator]

A mutation, a copying error, that doesn't just result in a deformity, but in an actual fully-functional well-designed limb, complete with articulating bones, sensory organs, and everything else? Doesn't that seem just a *little* far-fetched?

But let us assume that a simple 'copying error' *can* result in such sweeping yet well-designed changes, that are passed along to descendants - okay, and isn't that exactly what evolution is?

But a 'simple copying error' would result in a tumor or cancerous cells or warped bones, something like that. Organized data being replaced with random data and chaos. A well-designed functioning limb replete with all bodily constructs and a connection via nerve endings to the brain is not a simple copying error. Well, I suppose it's *possible*, if it had only happened once, but the odds that that much random data would just happen to fall exactly into place to produce such a thing, and have it be hereditary, that's gotta be monumentally against the odds.

Again, the simplest explanation - that the data came from the parents - is most likely the correct explanation.

To give you a perspective on just how unlikely it would be for random data to produce such a thing as a functioning tail like that, it surely takes 100k of genetic data for the whole ensemble. So, the odds would be something along the lines of 2^800,000 power against that. For me to even type that number as a percentage, I'd have to devote my entire life to doing just that. *Highly* unlikely. And for it to happen multiple times *and* be inherited across generations? Even worse odds.

But if inherited mutations of such complexity *are* possible, without getting the data from ancestors, then tada, you have evolution!

[jamstigator]

Also, the odds that a single-celled paramecium could be created randomly out of some primordial ooze are *vastly* higher than the odds that, out of nowhere, a human being could via transcription error grow an entire functional limb. So you're saying that the odds of event A happening are too low, and to explain it you offer event B, which has dramatically lower odds. Logic that is not.

[natureisawesome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureisawesome
I just told you what's so insulting about It. You don't need it and you're testing God. No that's not an opinion that's what God's word says.

Hardcore newbie:

1 Corinthians
15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Matthew 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Is it out of context? Debatable. Jesus appeared to people after he died, to many people. I asketh, why do I not receiveth?

it's funny tho, how is it testing God, I'm just asking the guy for a conversation.

It's testing God because it's unreasonable and unnecessary to ask for a sign. You have the evidence you need already. There's a reason for the name "doubting Thomas".

Here's a good argument I found:


Just what kind of authoritative disclosure do most moderns think they want before they will believe? People want some kind of supernatural, direct disclosure, but then don't realize that it would be worthless to the person next door who would demand the exact same experience. But then, even for the individual who receives such a one-time disclosure the experience would fade and become subject to reinterpretation as time wore on.

Moreover, this would create an individualistic nightmare, since each person would autonomously interpret his own experience curvitas in se. If God were to make a public supernatural spectacle such that everybody would see it and accept his authority, then we would have similar problems. God would have to make this exact disclosure to each new human being, otherwise we are back to the need for human tradition to pass on the event and its meaning. Furthermore, God would have to say everything that he wanted to say in this grand public event so that there would be no misinterpretation a few days or hours (!) later. Dreaming about alternate ways of God's disclosing his authority and excusing oneself for not accepting his given authoritative disclosure are ultimately futile and absurd.

The bottom line is, the best and most valid proof you can ever get is the kind nobody wants to receive, the internal recognition of his spiritual nature.


Ecclesiastes 3:11

11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

God has shown himself to people before. Numerous times. And some people believed, and some didn't. How can you receive God with your eyes if will not recieve him in your heart? Or how will you receive him with your ears if you do not receive him in your heart first. Surely recognition of the heart must come first. God is a Spirit, and if you reject him spiritually how can you acknowledge him with your eyes?

But all humanity is without excuse.


Romans 1:20

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Listen to this:


Luke 16:19-21

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This last verse has important implications. You see, the Jews in Jesus' day weren't alive back in the Exodus to see all the miracles and wonders God showed to the Hebrews. But God says that if they don't hear Moses and the prophets then they won't be persuaded. One of the books in the Old Testament is Genesis. Jesus knew that there is enough evidence already to recognize the validity of that book. And that really is the foundation for all scripture. Jesus refers back to Genesis a number of times. All scripture is built upon that foundation.




Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Well yes I am going by God's word and record. And that is proven True. I don't believe anything is possible. I go with the evidence. It's not highly unlikely. And how can you judge what is more likely or not, if anything is possible??


Well, it's possible that one day I'll go sky diving. highly unlikely, as I'm kind of scared of heights, but anything's possible.

You have no basis for that statement. You don't know anything is possible. And the fact that in this world the natural laws of the universe make some things impossible, clearly is evidence to the contrary.




Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
That may be so, but that doesn't invalidate what I said. I know some people get it in the gut and in both sides of the chest but generally it's around that area. I think actually the heart thing I mentioned happens to everyone but may not remember. Different parts of our bodies feel differently under different emotions.

Yeah, but without the brain you have no way to feel anything. you can feel without a heart. you probably wouldn't live longer than a few minutes without it, but it's not necessary for feelings.

What evidence do you have to show that the brain Feels with a capitol F anything? I say the evidence points to the contrary. Our mind is made up of living cells, but in the end it is just matter like the chair you're sitting on. Our brain is wired together as a tool. A man holding the hammer can feel the vibrations in his arm, but the hammer cannot feel, and there is no evidence to support that it can. Your mind is made up of many cells, but do cells feel human perceptions such as love, courage, beauty? No. And so then why would a connection of cells be able to? It's only a collection of cells. They're all matter in the end. Just a collection of individual cells that cannot feel human emotions. Do you dare to disagree? Are you a cell? Is that your source of self-consciousness?



Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
You can't be serious. I'd like to hear this one, perhaps. As long as it's not dirty.

Hardcore Newbie:

It's not dirty, but you might consider it to be so, so I'll spare the gory details. Just showing you it's a subjective opinion.

I think I already have an idea, and it seems to be an inaccurate portrayal of Love.

[
QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Humanism or atheism the point I made applies to both of them. But humanism is an organized religion. And don't say they're not, because they admit it themselves

Humanism, to my understanding, is the belief that we don't hinder our fellow men in against their will. if someone wants to call that a religion, be my guest, but not all people who subscribe to that line of thinking would consider it a religion. I don't.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter. I used humanism as an example because it sheds light on the fact that recognition of Spiritual Truth is even for them a belief (because they can't see it since it's spiritual), yet something recognized as higher Truth.



Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
If people don't have to do anything then why do we feel it necessary to have a government to keep things in order? And why in a democracy do they feel the need to have control over others to establish why they think is right? Obviously they are using they're pushing their moral choice on others as Truth we're all accountable to , but when confronted then it's everybody's own choice and we all have different personal standards. Like I said, lots of people define love differently, but everyone (just about) believes in Love. Can anyone say they hate love??

h.n.:

the idea of a democracy over millions and millions of people is ridiculous in the first place. There should only be four laws, Don't kill people, don't steal or take property, don't engage in fraud, and don't mess with children.

There's no way to establish even that without recognition of Spiritual Truth. That is grossly simplistic and without Christians humanity would still grapple with each other for order. The bottom line is, without God there is no logical basis for laws. It's only survival of the fittest. How does that sound? How would you like that philosophy in full effect. You even the deists who founded this country couldn't have done it without their "natural law" philosophy.



And I'm sure some people can say they've hate love, if they've had really bad experiences with it.

I hope we can both recognize that it wasn't any fallacy on the part of Love.



Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Wrong. Because the point is that the ideology they learned from the world taught them that that was ok . Christian doctrine doesn't teach people to do things like the spanish inquisition. Trust me, I hate the roman catholic church more than you do .

h.n.:




Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

This is justice. There's no corruption in this law. Attacking your Mother and Father is one of the worst things you could do. This law is in exact accordance with the seriousness of the offense and with the honor we should bestow on our parents. God wants us to love and honor our parents.


Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Oh you can't be serious. You don't think this means they have to sacrifice tier firstborns on the alter do you??



Exodus 13:1-14

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2"(A)Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."

3Moses said to the people, "(B)Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for (C)by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place (D)And nothing leavened shall be eaten.

4"On this day in the (E)month of Abib, you are about to go forth.

5"It shall be when the LORD (F)brings you to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, which (G)He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, (H)that you shall observe this rite in this month.

6"For (I)seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD.

7"Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and (J)nothing leavened shall be seen among you, nor shall any leaven be seen among you in all your borders.

8"(K)You shall tell your son on that day, saying, 'It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.'

9"And (L)it shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with (M)a powerful hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt.

10"Therefore, you shall (N)keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year.

11"Now when (O)the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite, as (P)He swore to you and to your fathers, and gives it to you,

12(Q)you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.

13"But (R)every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and (S)every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.

14"(T)And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' then you shall say to him, '(U)With a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.




Numbers 3:12-13

12And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

13Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the LORD.

You see? That why they did it. And this and the old law was used a sort of "type" and full of allegories to lead the way as a tutor to Christ.

h.n.:


Deuteronomy 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

It's not as if God doesn't care about these people at all. If you read the bible, when God is talking to Abraham and talks about sending his family to egypt and then coming back out, he mentions that the Caananites will be judged at a later time because their wickedness had not reached such a full measure. He was patient with them for over 430 years, and since they did not turn to him, he used them just as he used Pharaoh to be a testimony to all nations.



Deuteronomy 7:9-10

9"Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;

10 but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face.

God is patient. And he will do Good to those who do good. And he will punish evildoers. And that's just. It's just to destroy anyone who hates God .

It's also important to remember that another reason he told them to wipe them out is because they would later on be a snare to them. And guess what? They did. Because the Hebrews didn't completely wipe them out as God said, and they led Israel into sin and warred against them.

The truth is culture can have an effect on people's understanding of morality etc. But that doesn't mean we can't come to the right conclusion about those things. I have had my own internal struggles trying to understand how God could have done some of those things. But when I finally realized that my objections were all based upon false presuppositions influenced on me by culture etc., then my mind and heart was ready to recognize God's ways better. So often people forget they even have presuppositions. It's important to inspect those.

[natureisawesome]

Jamstigator said:


A mutation, a copying error, that doesn't just result in a deformity, but in an actual fully-functional well-designed limb, complete with articulating bones, sensory organs, and everything else? Doesn't that seem just a *little* far-fetched?

No. What do you mean "organs"? You mean nerves? There are numerous examples of body deformities where the appendage has nerves. You're not going to call all of them throwbacks to evolution are you?

Jamstigator:


But let us assume that a simple 'copying error' *can* result in such sweeping yet well-designed changes, that are passed along to descendants - okay, and isn't that exactly what evolution is?

Jamstigator:

No. Evolution requires complex and ordered information able to reproduce itself and pass on it's information. It also required a system of interpretation (RNA) to decipher the DNA code itself. These both have to be in place at the same time. Mutations go in the opposite direction because they only produce randomness, and loss of information. And that doesn't even begin to touch on how the inorganic cells defied the laws of nature and formed into live organisms able to reproduce. I want this to get into your head once and for all: mutations are bad. Mutations are not good. Mutations destroy life and produce disorder and randomness.


Again, the simplest explanation - that the data came from the parents - is most likely the correct explanation.

It may have. But if it did, it was because of faulty information.

Jamstigator:


To give you a perspective on just how unlikely it would be for random data to produce such a thing as a functioning tail like that, it surely takes 100k of genetic data for the whole ensemble. So, the odds would be something along the lines of 2^800,000 power against that. For me to even type that number as a percentage, I'd have to devote my entire life to doing just that. *Highly* unlikely. And for it to happen multiple times *and* be inherited across generations? Even worse odds.

But it's not totally random from scratch. DNA has a process of design from it's "blueprints", and somewhere along that process a copying error or mutation takes place. It's not totally random like the kind of randomness we find in nature. So your statistical guess isn't taking that into consideration.

Jamstigator:

QUOTE]But a 'simple copying error' would result in a tumor or cancerous cells or warped bones, something like that. Organized data being replaced with random data and chaos. A well-designed functioning limb replete with all bodily constructs and a connection via nerve endings to the brain is not a simple copying error. Well, I suppose it's *possible*, if it had only happened once, but the odds that that much random data would just happen to fall exactly into place to produce such a thing, and have it be hereditary, that's gotta be monumentally against the odds.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, it's not totally random. Take a look at the pictures I attached. Those are pictures
of hands with six fingers. Some of them have bone in them as you can see in the x-ray ( but not all of them do). But it's well recognized that this is a malformation caused by mutations.


Polydactyly or polydactylism (from the Greek poly = "many" + daktylos = "finger"), also known as hyperdactyly, is a congenital physical anomaly consisting of supernumerary fingers or toes

The extra digit is usually a small piece of soft tissue; occasionally it may contain bone without joints; rarely it may be a complete, functioning digit. The extra digit is most common on the ulnar (little finger) side of the hand, less common on the radial (thumb) side, and very rarely within the middle three digits.

The extra digit is most commonly an abnormal fork in an existing digit, or it may rarely originate at the wrist like a normal digit does.

Polydactyly can occur by itself, or more commonly, as one feature of a syndrome of congenital anomalies. When it occurs by itself, it is associated with autosomal dominant mutations in single genes, i.e. it is not a multifactorial trait.[1] But mutation in a variety of genes can give rise to polydactyly. Typically the mutated gene is involved in developmental patterning, and a syndrome of congenital anomalies results, of which polydactyly is one feature.

The condition has an incidence of 2 in every 1000 live births[1] although the frequency is higher in some groups (an example is the Amish in the United States, due to the founder effect).

Polydactyly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly)

SO there you go. A full extra finger with nerves and all caused by mutations in coding information.

jamstigator:


But if inherited mutations of such complexity *are* possible, without getting the data from ancestors, then tada, you have evolution!

But instead it's the opposite. You see an error in DNA that produces an extra finger or a few extra copies of bone or cartilage does not amount to new information. It's only an (erroneous) copy of preexisting information. Instead we find that mutations break down information and cause randomness.

I couldn't figure out how to show the pictures but here they are.

Image:Polydactyly 01 Lfoot AP.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Polydactyly_01_Lfoot_AP.jpg)

Image:Polydactyly 01 Rhand AP.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Polydactyly_01_Rhand_AP.jpg)

http://photos.almosthuman.net/albums/userpics/10001/six_fingers.jpg


__________________

[natureisawesome]

And what do you mean, "functioning tail"? That's all you . It's not used for balance and there's no muscles in it for grasping onto branches. It doesn't even have the proper bone formation to resemble anything like a functioning tail or prehensile tail.

This is nuts.

[natureisawesome]

I highly advise you jamstigator, to read this article comparing natural selection and variation with evolution:

Variation and natural selection versus evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp)

Please read this if you will, and then if you still have any objections we can go on from there. This will save me a lot of explaining.

[snowblind]

yo whats your theory on dinosaurs god boy ? i notice nooooo answer

[Hardcore Newbie]

It's testing God because it's unreasonable and unnecessary to ask for a sign. You have the evidence you need already. There's a reason for the name "doubting Thomas"....

The bottom line is, the best and most valid proof you can ever get is the kind nobody wants to receive, the internal recognition of his spiritual nature.
how about I decide if I need more evidence. I'll decide if it's unreasonable or unnecessary.


God has shown himself to people before. Numerous times. And some people believed, and some didn't. How can you receive God with your eyes if will not recieve him in your heart? Or how will you receive him with your ears if you do not receive him in your heart first. Surely recognition of the heart must come first. God is a Spirit, and if you reject him spiritually how can you acknowledge him with your eyes?

But all humanity is without excuse.Then I guess I'm "doomed". At least the people who were shown had some actual evidence and then chose what they believe accordingly.

And romans 1:20 made me laugh :) I don't have an excuse in not being able to see his invisible attributes and nature. That`s fair :)



This last verse has important implications. You see, the Jews in Jesus' day weren't alive back in the Exodus to see all the miracles and wonders God showed to the Hebrews. But God says that if they don't hear Moses and the prophets then they won't be persuaded. One of the books in the Old Testament is Genesis. Jesus knew that there is enough evidence already to recognize the validity of that book. And that really is the foundation for all scripture. Jesus refers back to Genesis a number of times. All scripture is built upon that foundation.
the fact that people have seen Jesus after his death to me shows that *some* people need proof. What was the point of him returning and "proving" that his resurrection indeed came true? If people don't need to be shown, then people should have just had faith that Christ was resurrected.


You have no basis for that statement. You don't know anything is possible. And the fact that in this world the natural laws of the universe make some things impossible, clearly is evidence to the contrary.
if there's a possibility of God, then there's obviously a possibility that anything can happen. If God wanted to change the natural laws if he saw fit, he can do it. If god wanted it to rain donuts, he could make it so.



What evidence do you have to show that the brain Feels with a capitol F anything? I say the evidence points to the contrary. Our mind is made up of living cells, but in the end it is just matter like the chair you're sitting on. Our brain is wired together as a tool. A man holding the hammer can feel the vibrations in his arm, but the hammer cannot feel, and there is no evidence to support that it can. Your mind is made up of many cells, but do cells feel human perceptions such as love, courage, beauty? No. And so then why would a connection of cells be able to? It's only a collection of cells. They're all matter in the end. Just a collection of individual cells that cannot feel human emotions. Do you dare to disagree? Are you a cell? Is that your source of self-consciousness?
What's the significance of a capital f?

And without the brain, the arm can't feel. the arm sends signals to the brain, which in turn sends signals back to the arm.

And I wont pretend to know how emotions work. You might, tho. I'm sure you'll have an explanation.


I think I already have an idea, and it seems to be an inaccurate portrayal of Love.To you, maybe. of course, there's more to love than sex, I love many people that i don't have sex with. But the idea of love originating from the fingers or hands would be amazing, even outside of sex. A handshake would be worth so much more.




It doesn't matter. I used humanism as an example because it sheds light on the fact that recognition of Spiritual Truth is even for them a belief (because they can't see it since it's spiritual), yet something recognized as higher Truth.

There's no way to establish even that without recognition of Spiritual Truth. That is grossly simplistic and without Christians humanity would still grapple with each other for order. The bottom line is, without God there is no logical basis for laws. It's only survival of the fittest. How does that sound? How would you like that philosophy in full effect. You even the deists who founded this country couldn't have done it without their "natural law" philosophy.
Sure there is. People realize that if people keep doing bad things (like killing each other), that eventually they will cease to exist. I don't see what's not logical about that.


I hope we can both recognize that it wasn't any fallacy on the part of Love.Yeah, but that wasn't your question. You aked if someone could hate love. The answer is yes.




This is justice. There's no corruption in this law. Attacking your Mother and Father is one of the worst things you could do. This law is in exact accordance with the seriousness of the offense and with the honor we should bestow on our parents. God wants us to love and honor our parents.
there are always exceptions. I think cursing your parents (cause there's a verse that deals with cursing your parents, and not slaying them, somewhere, oh wait, I already posted that) is somewhat understandable if you know, they molest you or something. I don't expect someone to let a child die because they're frustrated from being molested and beaten.




Oh you can't be serious. You don't think this means they have to sacrifice tier firstborns on the alter do you??
that's definitely what it looks like.




You see? That why they did it. And this and the old law was used a sort of "type" and full of allegories to lead the way as a tutor to Christ.
No, actually, i don't see why.




God is patient. And he will do Good to those who do good. And he will punish evildoers. And that's just. It's just to destroy anyone who hates God .
You may find it just for god to kill someone who hates him, I do not.



It's also important to remember that another reason he told them to wipe them out is because they would later on be a snare to them. And guess what? They did. Because the Hebrews didn't completely wipe them out as God said, and they led Israel into sin and warred against them.

The truth is culture can have an effect on people's understanding of morality etc. But that doesn't mean we can't come to the right conclusion about those things. I have had my own internal struggles trying to understand how God could have done some of those things. But when I finally realized that my objections were all based upon false presuppositions influenced on me by culture etc., then my mind and heart was ready to recognize God's ways better. So often people forget they even have presuppositions. It's important to inspect those.I've seen people rationalizing slavery because it converted some people to Xianty. They agree slavery is horrible, but I guess the end justifies the means for them. I'm not saying that you subscribe to this line of thinking at all, but I disagree that God's way is better.

[natureisawesome]

snowblind:


yo whats your theory on dinosaurs god boy ? i notice nooooo answer

I'll get to you in a little bit. I have to take a shower. I didn't respond because It seemed like you wern't really seeking a response.

[snowblind]

sorry yeah.

asking your view can seem a little rehtorical.

hardcore newbie

in a nut shell human emotions are triggered by release of different chemical compounds into the brain. usually from the cerebal cortex. this is basically where are chemicals are released and is where the core memories and functions are stored. it is thought that emotions are triggered by learnt behaviours and situations. in that when you see something sad, you brain takes all the information that it is being presented with, correlates that with learnt experiences of the same feeling and personal experiences, compares them and then releases said hormone. its a lighting fast reflex that is soon hard wired in when we are in our formative years. it is however a personal thing depending on our emotinal develpoment as children, massive traumas and personal liberation.
emotions can be suppressed by various toxins which mask the effect yadda yadda yadda.
whilst this is seems a very clinical explination, itisnt as all emotions are subject to the (ahem) subject nad there life.

i imagine these kind of responses are evolution of inital primal urges of fight or flight and the need to reproduce. with the brain expandig in complexity and more processing power becoming avaliable, the brain begins to develop more emotional attachment and the rest is darwinism.

im sure tahts the least air tight response, cus i spent most of psyc staring at kayleighs chest. but it was worth it

peace

[snowblind]

nature is awesome. i have read many of your posts and threads. engaged in debate with you myself and watch every other people do it themselves. but it ultimately boils down to one thing with you and that is. the internal feeling of good.

ok now you feel him, thats fine. that is your proof. all your evidence points you to this conclusion in that it is subjective and blinkered. a lot of your proof isn't proof, it isnt evidence and it isn't fact.

its rehtoric, spin and assumptions. but too you it is the truth. the trouble is we live in what im am sure will be called the information age. people filter thousands of bytes of data a minuate an hour and our brains are adept at functioning out the stuff that is not relevant to ourselves.

what you fail to see is that most people don't believe, they don't have faith. they have prooved to themselves that god doesn't exist. you will never ever ever convince anyone that god exists, if they don't think he does.

your inital lengthy post. makes numerous assumptions and percieves certain data as being evidence. when really the only real, tangible, 100 % concrete evidence that you have and i hate to break it to you, is that you FEEL god.

now that is good for you man. i like listening to your debate and i really wanna know where dinosaurs fit into gods plan being that man just wasn't arround during any stage of their exisitance, discounting birds, reptiles sharks and nessie.

i guess beliving in god, heaven and hot angels is a nice way to live. that there will be something after. but i would hate to put faith in that and live half a life and it to not happen. rather than be a good person, live and see what happens.

your reasoning and logic is aggressive, flawed, untactful and well laughable at times.

i wish you luck man

i cant help but think you mite need to get laid

but luck i can give

peace man

snow

[natureisawesome]

snowblind:


nature is awesome. i have read many of your posts and threads. engaged in debate with you myself and watch every other people do it themselves. but it ultimately boils down to one thing with you and that is. the internal feeling of good.

That's not true at all. That's just one side of the evidence. You completely ignore that fact that the intitial reason I even created this thread was to show that a clear and sure path to a logical and reasonable faith can be built upon solid proof and evidence we know about ourselfs and our universe.

I have heard little at all about that, and have heard lots of other stray arguements. But basically the 2nd law was an objection, and then I dealed with that.

So before you go telling me it's just my feelings, why don't you review my original post and come and tell me why it is or isn't flawed because that's what this is all about.


ok now you feel him, thats fine. that is your proof. all your evidence points you to this conclusion in that it is subjective and blinkered. a lot of your proof isn't proof, it isnt evidence and it isn't fact.

Oh you mean like the Fact that you are thinking? Or the Fact that you exist?


its rehtoric, spin and assumptions. but too you it is the truth. the trouble is we live in what im am sure will be called the information age. people filter thousands of bytes of data a minuate an hour and our brains are adept at functioning out the stuff that is not relevant to ourselves.

rhetoric, spin and assumptions. I clearly don't see what you're talking about, if you'd like to give me an example I'll be sure to get back to you.


what you fail to see is that most people don't believe, they don't have faith. they have prooved to themselves that god doesn't exist. you will never ever ever convince anyone that god exists, if they don't think he does.

I can reason with people, and show them the evidence. But if they refuse not to see it and not accept it, then there's nothing I can do. In the end, they have to prove it to themselves. When people don't they turn it back on me and say it doesn't exist and I have no proof.


your inital lengthy post. makes numerous assumptions and percieves certain data as being evidence. when really the only real, tangible, 100 % concrete evidence that you have and i hate to break it to you, is that you FEEL god.

That's not true.


now that is good for you man. i like listening to your debate and i really wanna know where dinosaurs fit into gods plan being that man just wasn't arround during any stage of their exisitance, discounting birds, reptiles sharks and nessie.

I assure you that lock ness will not be part of my response on dinosoars.


i guess beliving in god, heaven and hot angels is a nice way to live. that there will be something after. but i would hate to put faith in that and live half a life and it to not happen. rather than be a good person, live and see what happens.

You know you're not good. None of us are good. I don't believe in blind faith either man, I'm trying to show that to you.


your reasoning and logic is aggressive, flawed, untactful and well laughable at times.

Aggresive? Untactful? If you can show me how, then I'll be sure to make a change in my behaviour. That certainly would be counterproductive. But as for flawed, I've yet to see you prove that.

snowblind.


i wish you luck man

I don't believe in luck. I believe in perserverance and Love.

[Pass That Shit]

It boils down to this. Faith comes with substance and evidence. You can't have Faith if you don't have Jesus.
I posses substance and evidence inside me that God is true. If you think I'm lying, you have to provide proof.
If someone gives their testimony in a court of law, it's the accuser who has to prove that the testimony is a lie.
You can call me a liar all you want, but keep in mind that all you're doing is accusing. No matter how many of these threads we go through, no one will ever prove that God is not in me. You can choose not to believe me, but that doesn't mean I'm lying. Peace!

[natureisawesome]

Here is my explanation about dinosaurs.



Genesis 1

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

SO God created the dinosaurs. And then he created people. And they got along fine because everyone was vegetarians:



Genesis 1

28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "(AJ)Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

29 Then God said, "Behold, (AK)I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Before sin there was no death, and there were no dinosaur bones before Adam sinned. Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Revelation 22:3.)

But the earth became full of wickedness, and God told a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood (Genesis 6:13). God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noahâ??s family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20).

God sent the animals onto the ark, and even though there would be plenty of room for large animals, they could have been young dinosaurs that weren't fully grown.

But what happened to all of the dinosaurs and other animals that weren't on the ark? They drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of lots of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.

Creationists believe this flood formed many of the fossil layers around the earth. fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.

In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal was called behemoth. The bible says he moved his tail like a cedar tree. Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur. Elephants and hippos do not have tails like cedar trees.

the word â??dragonâ?? is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.More can be read about that here (halfway down "does the bible mention dinosaurs":

What happened to the dinosaurs? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp)

Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records of dragons and their encounters with people. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly for creationists), many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists.

the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago.

Evolutionists have many guesses as to what happened to dinosaurs. some of them include:

Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

So they're pretty much clueless.

A plausible explanation for extinction of dinosaurs for evolution would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea. but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. And no such explanation exists.

But if you take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:

At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to competition for food that was no longer in abundance, other catastrophes, man killing for food , and the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).

Bones do not have to be â??turned into stoneâ?� to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly â??permineralized.â?? This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone.

But fossils don't take a long time to form at all. The time it takes to become fully fossilized is really variable. If the groundwater has a lot of minerals, then it can heavy pretty fast. If a bone today fell into a mineral spring it could become fossilized in a matter of weeks.

Already dinosaur bones have been found which defy the theory of evolution containing not only blood, but tissue and complete blood vessels.If evolution were true, these bones would have had to survive for seventy million years or longer.

Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of "millions of years" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp)

Fresh dinosaur bones have been found in places such as Alaska and Montana .

The scrambling continues (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0306AAAS.asp)

Fresh dinosaur bones found (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp)

There have also been reported sightings of dinosaurs and dinosaur looking creatures:

A living dinosaur? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/living.asp)

Are dinosaurs alive today? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp)

It has been argued by evolutionists that if Dinosaurs and humans lived together, then why don't we see them buried together. But if they're not buried together that doesn't automatically mean they didn't live together, it just means they weren't buried together. As the floodwaters rose during the flood of Noah, humans would have headed for higher ground or swam or held onto debris for as long as possible. Also humans corpses bloat and float on the waters surface. Very few humans would be buried by sediment, but rather decayed without fossilization.

Marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldnâ??t escape the sediment and water.The fossil record shows that:

95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.

So, we shouldnâ??t expect to find many human fossils at all. There may be human fossils lower down, but the creationist flood model doesn't need it. Human bones aren't found with coelacanths either, but they are here with us today.(coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive)

There is also evidence to support mammoths being hunted in America 10,000 years ago (on evolutionists terms and admissions).:

Messages on stone (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp)

people think of Dinosaurs as massive creatures that wouldn't have fit on the ark. But the average size of a dinosaur is about the size of a sheep. Many of the dinosaurs were relatively small.Only a few dinosaurs grew to extremely large sizes .Dinosaurs lay eggs, and the largest one known is about the size of a football. Even the largest dinosaurs were small when first hatched. Some might argue that the 600 or more species of dinosaurs could not have fitted on the Ark. But the bible teaches that God created separate kinds of animals. It is then possible to understand how there could have been fewer dinosaurs with more genetic information to pass down to generations and split off into different specialized groups. It has been estimated that as few as 50 dinosaurs could have been on the ark.

Also, it must be remembered that Noahâ??s Ark was extremely large and quite capable of carrying the number of animals needed, including dinosaurs. The idea of a tiny odd shaped pathetic little craft with animals heads sticking out of the windows has permeated people's mind far and wide, such as this one:

http://www.muralsforkids.com/images/NoahsArk.jpg

This misrepresentation is of course absurd. The real Noah's ark would have looked more like this:

http://www.combatreform2.com/noahsarkhil.jpg

http://www.worldwideflood.com/general/ark_history_files/lutherark2.gif

There are many skeptics, but few have have actually performed the calculations. There are two questions that need to be addressed. How many types of animals did Noah need to take? Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?

In the Bible it says as I stated before that God did not created animals in the sense of speciation that we know today. It says he created them into different kinds of animals. So starting back further in time, there could have been less animals with greater potential for speciation and more variability in their genetic information. Thus there would be less animals that would need to fit on the ark. One estimate by John Woodmorappe, author of a book called Noah's ark: A feasible study estimates the number to be about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. This calculation apparently don't include invertebrates, but with the current model their is said to be plenty of room in the ark.

Of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown.The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappeâ??s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.

Here is some calculations of the size of the ark:


The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noahâ??s family and â??rangeâ?? for the animals.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animalsâ?? needs for exercise anyway.

Even if we donâ??t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Arkâ??s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp)

Here are some examples of how large the ark was:

WWF: Compare Noahs Ark (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/compare_ships/compare_ships.htm)
WWF: Ark Images (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/ark_images/ark_images.htm)
WWF: Ark Modelers (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/modelers/ark_modelers.htm)
Modeling the size of Noah’s Ark (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/ark.asp)
Scale model replica of Noah's ark (http://www.biblestudy.org/biblepic/arksize.html)
Picture of Inside of Noah's Ark (http://www.biblestudy.org/biblepic/picture-of-inside-of-noah-ark.html)

[natureisawesome]

Edit: whoops posted that a second time on accident.

[jamstigator]

How did Noah handle all the very small animals and creatures? There are more than 1 million known species. If each species could be contained, say, in a large jar, that'd require a million jars, plus shelves and such to support it all. Figure 10 pounds per jar, for the creatures themselves, the jar, food for them, and whatever environmental needs they might have. So, now we have 10 million pounds of containers that gotta fit on the Ark.

Now you need water for all million species, as ocean water doesn't work for most of them. Figure a pound of water per day per species, minimum. So a mere two week sojourn would have necessitated carrying at least 14 million pounds of water.

The man days involved is even more impressive, because some species are only located in this area or that area of the world, so you'd probably need at least a couple of hundred major seafaring expeditions to go round up the various species. Given the technology of the day, if they had a few tens of thousands of people sailing the world collecting all the species, it'd still have taken them hundreds of years to complete the task. I assume Noah was related to Methuselah, to have lived long enough to see the enterprise through.

All-in-all, for the Noah's Ark myth to be true, the ship would have needed to be as large as one of our current largest cargo ships, if not larger. And structurally speaking, wood would not have been adequate to the task, so he must have used something else. I don't think they had any major steel-making facilities in those days, however.

So, a million jars (or pens, for the larger species), millions of pounds of water, millions of pounds of food, people to do the work keeping everything alive, a couple hundred years, a fleet of ships, an army of workers, factories capable of mass producing strong metals, shipyards enormous enough to hold a massive cargo container, and yet, we haven't found this thing? It'd be bigger, stronger and more durable than the freaking Great Pyramid!

I'm mildly skeptical.

[imitator]

Oh you mean like the Fact that you are thinking? Or the Fact that you exist?


Ive pretty much given up on the discussion up to this point, we had both said what we wanted to say, and while I cant know for certain about how you think/feel, I feel that I understand where you are coming from, even if I do not agree with it at all.

The problem here is, once again, there is no fact that we exist, there is no fact that we are "thinking". All of us could very well be figments of your imagination, in which case, it isnt a fact that he exists, and its not a fact that he is thinking.

We could all be a part of some great beings dream, in which case its not a fact that we exist, and its not a fact that we are truely thinking.

Its very very very very very very very likely that we do exist, but its not a fact.

The only reason that the whole mental excercise of "Cognito ergo sum" exists, is because he took the liberty of excusing the possibility of him being a part of the Dreamers theory. He specifically stated that to assume that would mean that anything is possible, and he was going to assume that it was not possible, to allow for him to continue.

A better, more modern example of something similar to the dreamers theory, is the movie "The Matrix". In that movie, they live in a world which is not real, living lives that are not real, and feeling and doing things which were not real. Something similiar could be happening, and we would not know unless someone outside of that system was able to inform us. Otherwise, we would be oblivious.

I got to head off to work now, Ill finish this up if I read through and see I need to add more when I get back.

[Hardcore Newbie]

How did Noah handle all the very small animals and creatures? There are more than 1 million known species. If each species could be contained, say, in a large jar, that'd require a million jars, plus shelves and such to support it all. Figure 10 pounds per jar, for the creatures themselves, the jar, food for them, and whatever environmental needs they might have. So, now we have 10 million pounds of containers that gotta fit on the Ark.

Now you need water for all million species, as ocean water doesn't work for most of them. Figure a pound of water per day per species, minimum. So a mere two week sojourn would have necessitated carrying at least 14 million pounds of water.

The man days involved is even more impressive, because some species are only located in this area or that area of the world, so you'd probably need at least a couple of hundred major seafaring expeditions to go round up the various species. Given the technology of the day, if they had a few tens of thousands of people sailing the world collecting all the species, it'd still have taken them hundreds of years to complete the task. I assume Noah was related to Methuselah, to have lived long enough to see the enterprise through.

All-in-all, for the Noah's Ark myth to be true, the ship would have needed to be as large as one of our current largest cargo ships, if not larger. And structurally speaking, wood would not have been adequate to the task, so he must have used something else. I don't think they had any major steel-making facilities in those days, however.

So, a million jars (or pens, for the larger species), millions of pounds of water, millions of pounds of food, people to do the work keeping everything alive, a couple hundred years, a fleet of ships, an army of workers, factories capable of mass producing strong metals, shipyards enormous enough to hold a massive cargo container, and yet, we haven't found this thing? It'd be bigger, stronger and more durable than the freaking Great Pyramid!

I'm mildly skeptical.Where did all the wood come from, anyways? Joe Rogan has a great bit about the ark.

"If you tell the story of Noah's Ark to.... an 8 year old retarded boy, he's gonna have some questions. Why do we have to believe the story just because it's been around a long time when it doesn't make any sense?..."

[snowblind]

ok well, the majority of evidence supports that dinosaurs and human only coexisted for a small amount of time and that dinosaurs inhabited the earth alot longer before man.

if dinosaurs became carnivorus because of the downfall of man ie sin then why didnt all become carnivorus and wouldnt this mean there was a change in their thinking, in that they decided not to eat meat, then didnt care that they did.

considereing the brain power of most dinosaurs was small this is highly unlikely

the ark. ok. rite. a ship. containg 2 of every animal in the world. 2. the logistics of this are laughable. the fact one man or a handful of people made this is retarded. but mainly where is the ark ? and if this is true then we are all inbreds from a very very very very small gene pool of people left over after the floods culling. but i am also asuming that on the ark where a pair of people from all ethnic backgrounds. to allow for the localised skin pigment mutations of humans around the world

but finally i ask if the ark was real, floated saved us all. wouldnt it have been herald. preserved. saved.

where is it

natureisawesome. please for the love of god watch the planet of the apes, especially the tribuanl scene.

snow

[natureisawesome]

Jamstigator said:


How did Noah handle all the very small animals and creatures? There are more than 1 million known species. If each species could be contained, say, in a large jar, that'd require a million jars, plus shelves and such to support it all. Figure 10 pounds per jar, for the creatures themselves, the jar, food for them, and whatever environmental needs they might have. So, now we have 10 million pounds of containers that gotta fit on the Ark.

They weren't divided into the species we know today.Didn't you read what it said? I said that God created all of the animals in different "kinds". for instance, the dog is a kind. There are a lot of variations that can come in a dog, but they're all dogs. The article also pointed out that there would only have needed to be 16,000 pairs and there would still have been room left over easily with space to spare even with another 1,000,000 insect species. There would have been left about 1/2 of the 3 decks in a model with plenty of room left for invertebrates, food water and "range" space. You know a lot of people, intelligent people have worked on this. A lot of people criticize but they ignore the evidence.


Now you need water for all million species, as ocean water doesn't work for most of them. Figure a pound of water per day per species, minimum. So a mere two week sojourn would have necessitated carrying at least 14 million pounds of water.
It rained alot during this time (as you can imagine. Also, there was plenty of space left on the ark as I showed above and in what I wrote. There are also other methods of distillation they could have used on the ark. There would have been no need. Besides, the massive amount of rainfall would have seriously diluted the seawater anyway, perhaps enough to drink with no distillation at all. Also, when animals aren't active, they need a lot less water.


The man days involved is even more impressive, because some species are only located in this area or that area of the world, so you'd probably need at least a couple of hundred major seafaring expeditions to go round up the various species. Given the technology of the day, if they had a few tens of thousands of people sailing the world collecting all the species, it'd still have taken them hundreds of years to complete the task. I assume Noah was related to Methuselah, to have lived long enough to see the enterprise through.

Actually that's not how it happened at all. It simply says, "There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah". According to this, Noah did not have to go get them; they simply came. How God effected that the Bible does not say.



Genesis 6
20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.



All-in-all, for the Noah's Ark myth to be true, the ship would have needed to be as large as one of our current largest cargo ships, if not larger. And structurally speaking, wood would not have been adequate to the task, so he must have used something else. I don't think they had any major steel-making facilities in those days, however.

The boat has already been proven to be plenty adequate to carry the amount of animals. And yes wood would have been plenty adequate also. Please study the calculations before
you go saying it can't be strong enough. I'm sure that engineers more than a few times
have worked on this. Also remember that Noah was 500 years old when first mentioned in Genesis, and 600 years old when he enters into the ark. So there could have been up to 100 years for him to work on the ark.

WorldwideFlood.com (http://www.worldwideflood.com/)


So, a million jars (or pens, for the larger species), millions of pounds of water, millions of pounds of food, people to do the work keeping everything alive, a couple hundred years, a fleet of ships, an army of workers, factories capable of mass producing strong metals, shipyards enormous enough to hold a massive cargo container, and yet, we haven't found this thing? It'd be bigger, stronger and more durable than the freaking Great Pyramid!

But actually when we look at the real data and find out what was really required it wasn't like that at all. You don't understand that the dimensions for that boat lead to a type of vessel that was very strong, much stronger than any normal wood ship. It was like a big huge sturdy bardge. And comparing it to the pyramids isn't correct. It's two different kinds of strengths. Wood is more flexible and if the ark were made out of something that hard it would be .. a rock.

[imitator]

What about the fish? And the animals who float on water?

A huge fuckoff flood wouldnt have affected them at all. And the point was to start all over...

I mean, god didnt say, "Two of every kind on the ark, except the swimming ones, and the floating ones."

Granted I find parts of the entire ordeal a bit of a stretch, since good and bad are human creations, and animals have no concept of good and bad. I mean, are there bad giraffe's? And if so, how are they bad/evil?

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:



The problem here is, once again, there is no fact that we exist, there is no fact that we are "thinking". All of us could very well be figments of your imagination, in which case, it isn't a fact that he exists, and its not a fact that he is thinking.

If you don't know you exist, how can you know anything else? I believe you're in denial. You use your mind to recognize yourself and say it's not for sure, and then you use your mind to come to some other conclusion that you believe is correct. How can recognizing any possibility come before recognizing your mind which recognizes?? It cannot. You can't and you're in denial. But I 've addressed this several times.


We could all be a part of some great beings dream, in which case its not a fact that we exist, and its not a fact that we are truly thinking.

What evidence to you have to show that may be possible? You don't have any. How do you know what is possible or not? What we know as possible is dictated by what we observe in the outside world. Don't call your imagination a fact.



Its very very very very very very very likely that we do exist, but its not a fact.

How do you know it's very likely that we exist if it supposedly can't be verified? How do you determine value? How do you know it's more likely without taking into equation the empirical evidence. So it's really only part empirical evidence, and part imagination.


The only reason that the whole mental excercise of "Cognito ergo sum" exists, is because he took the liberty of excusing the possibility of him being a part of the Dreamers theory. He specifically stated that to assume that would mean that anything is possible, and he was going to assume that it was not possible, to allow for him to continue.

Don't compare me with Descartes. I'm arguing, not him. And he's flawed in that logic and I don't agree with it.


A better, more modern example of something similar to the dreamers theory, is the movie "The Matrix". In that movie, they live in a world which is not real, living lives that are not real, and feeling and doing things which were not real. Something similar could be happening, and we would not know unless someone outside of that system was able to inform us. Otherwise, we would be oblivious.

Once again you contradict yourself. How do you know that the matrix is a possibility? You use your mind and the outside world which you say cannot be validated to help conclude (the other part being your total imagination) something you believe is validated. That is, the possibility for such and such. It's not valid. So you use your mind to build a conclusion and you deny your mind. Go with the evidence you do have. You can never deny your mind.

There's a good chance you just did it. that is, used your "unverifiable" mind to try to think of a "verifiable" refutation. You cannot escape your mind. You cannot escape reality.

[natureisawesome]

Hardcore Newbie:


Where did all the wood come from, anyways?.

Trees.

[imitator]

I think you are having a problem grasping the concept of possible vs actual.

Anything is possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I can think anything I want, I can even believe specific things. It still doesnt mean that I am real, that my existance is a fact. Everything I think, everything I feel could possibly be constructed by someones dream, with the illusion of freewill.

And I have never once stated that I know for a fact anything at all. In fact, I think I have said the exact opposite in multiple occasions. I have beliefs that most things are how they seem, but I know that it is ignorant to assume that anything we know is actually truth and fact.

I recognize the possibility that I am real. Just as much as I recognize the possibility that I am not real. Those possibilities dont have to rely on fact, unless you have undeniable proof that one or the other is true, in which case the other one would have to be false. But there is no definitive proof, there can never be with the dreamer theory. Its why its not brought up in most discussions, because its like Hitlering an arguement, it stops it dead in most situations.

Look at it this way.. Me thinking about thinking about me thinking could all have been part of this persons dream. The dreamer can create anything he/she/it wants, in any way, and it would be possible, because it is a dream. And I cant prove it, and you cant prove it. And since it cant be disproven, you cant state for a fact that its not possible. The dreamer theory covers all of this, alot better then your two websites and flawed logic in some departments can, or myself, I recommend looking into it. Ill find the "official" name of it tonight.


What evidence to you have to show that may be possible? You don't have any. How do you know what is possible or not? What we know as possible is dictated by what we observe in the outside world. Don't call your imagination a fact.

What evidence do you have to show that it isnt possible? Once again, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. A

And I never called my imagination a fact. The only person who has a problem with calling things facts that arent in this conversation, is you. I purposely avoid using that word, because to do so is incorrect, and tends to diminish the meaning of the word the more its misused.

Also, are you stating that total knowledge, and everything that happens around us is limited by human knowledge and understanding? That it cant be happening if we dont know it, and see it? Human observation is severely flawed. You can be tricked many different ways while you use your observation. Hell, its one of the first things you learn in an entry level philosophy class. A person who relies on their observation to determine the truth or fact of something, is someone who is relying on a flawed system, and a someone who will not be able to provide solid proof of anything.


How do you know it's very likely that we exist if it supposedly can't be verified? How do you determine value? How do you know it's more likely without taking into equation the empirical evidence. So it's really only part empirical evidence, and part imagination.

I cant. Thats why I didnt say it was a fact. But, current evidence leans towards that conclusion. So, currently, with the evidence we have available, its very very likely that we do actually exist. And thats about as far as it could ever get with that, if you include the dreamers theory. There would be no known way as of now to determine if that was the case, without something or someone from outside the dream exposing it to us.

Oh, and just to clarify, since there seems to be misunderstandings with what I post, none of this is a fact, or a truth, and I am not stating it as such. It is my interpretation of what has been laid available for us in the history that we know.


Don't compare me with Descartes. I'm arguing, not him. And he's flawed in that logic and I don't agree with it.

Flawed how? Im not arguing, he is flawed in many many ways, as any person would be. But what specifically are you referring to when you say this?


Once again you contradict yourself. How do you know that the matrix is a possibility? You use your mind and the outside world which you say cannot be validated to help conclude (the other part being your total imagination) something you believe is validated. That is, the possibility for such and such. It's not valid. So you use your mind to build a conclusion and you deny your mind. Go with the evidence you do have. You can never deny your mind.


Anything is a possibility, in the dreamers theory. :p

Seriously, how many damn times do I have to say it, and how many different ways, before you grasp the simple concept of it?

Yes, I use my mind to do everything you mentioned there, just as I stated before when you brought up the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENT. That doesnt mean that everything I have just done wasnt dreamed up by some unknown entity as a part of their dream. They right now, could be dreaming that I am typing this up about them dreaming about me typing this up, at this very moment, in which case none of this would be real, none of it would be fact, it would be a dream.


There's a good chance you just did it. that is, used your "unverifiable" mind to try to think of a "verifiable" refutation. You cannot escape your mind. You cannot escape reality.

Did you seriously just bring in "reality" to the table? Jesus...

Reality is easily one of the MOST argued states in philosophy. How do you prove reality? How do you prove what you experience as reality is the same as someone else? How do you disprove it?

Exactly.

Reality is a joke if you are trying to bring this up in regards to truth and fact. AFAIK, no way has been found to determine and state THE reality, which in theory all would live in, and then through their perceptions, view. Its been a yr or so since I stayed up on that stuff, Ive been a lazy researcher, I know... but at that point, and back to the early dawn of man(creation, whatever, dont want to argue this point), it has been a philosophical question that has not been answered yet.

Anyways, Im sure it was just a slip on your part, or something similarly innocent, so no worries, but Id recommend refraining from bringing in the idea of "reality" into debates such as this, or any really. If you are talking with someone who has even the slightest background into Philosophy, you are fucked.

[imitator]

What about the fish? And the animals who float on water?

A huge fuckoff flood wouldnt have affected them at all. And the point was to start all over...

I mean, god didnt say, "Two of every kind on the ark, except the swimming ones, and the floating ones."

Granted I find parts of the entire ordeal a bit of a stretch, since good and bad are human creations, and animals have no concept of good and bad. I mean, are there bad giraffe's? And if so, how are they bad/evil?

Im sure you are in the middle of typing a response to someone here in this thread, but thought I would ask again... any answers to this?

Yes, it was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am interested how you... or should I say your website, explains things such as this?

Why did all the fish get a free ride without any worries, but the land creatures had to do a lottery to see which two out of the entire population of that species would survive?

[natureisawesome]

Imitator, as far as the reality verifiable/unverifiable thing, I'm done with that. I don't think you got my point . "Anything is possible", statement of fact. prove it.

From here on, will you please just deal with the evidence we have around us.

As far as your question goes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
What about the fish? And the animals who float on water?

A huge ******* flood wouldnt have affected them at all. And the point was to start all over...

I mean, god didnt say, "Two of every kind on the ark, except the swimming ones, and the floating ones."

Granted I find parts of the entire ordeal a bit of a stretch, since good and bad are human creations, and animals have no concept of good and bad. I mean, are there bad giraffe's? And if so, how are they bad/evil?

The animals weren't killed off because they were evil. The animals were killed off because God judged man, and animals were in the way. It was a cleansing of the whole earth. The flood itself was done both to judge the world and also as a sign to future generations. The flood was an allegory of the gospel. And it was man's fault the animals got hurt, just like it's mans fault that animals live in a world of death and torment. Many of the animals in the sea did die out. The fossil record shows that plainly.


Yes, it was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am interested how you... or should I say your website, explains things such as this?

Why did all the fish get a free ride without any worries, but the land creatures had to do a lottery to see which two out of the entire population of that species would survive?


I would hardly say the fish had a free ride. There was massive earthquakes, underground water resevoirs breaking open, lava eruptions, water enviroment going crazy, swirling streams of thousands of tons of sediment and rock etc.

I explained myself and used websites and there's nothing wrong with that.

[imitator]

Imitator, as far as the reality verifiable/unverifiable thing, I'm done with that. I don't think you got my point . "Anything is possible", statement of fact. prove it.

From here on, will you please just deal with the evidence we have around us.

As far as your question goes.



The animals weren't killed off because they were evil. The animals were killed off because God judged man, and animals were in the way. It was a cleansing of the whole earth. The flood itself was done both to judge the world and also as a sign to future generations. The flood was an allegory of the gospel. And it was man's fault the animals got hurt, just like it's mans fault that animals live in a world of death and torment. Many of the animals in the sea did die out. The fossil record shows that plainly.



I would hardly say the fish had a free ride. There was massive earthquakes, underground water resevoirs breaking open, lava eruptions, water enviroment going crazy, swirling streams of thousands of tons of sediment and rock etc.

I explained myself and used websites and there's nothing wrong with that.

Its a general rule of thumb I guess from where I am from, that if someone calls into question your source, and you cant find anything outside of those few sources to prove what you are saying, that you dont have an arguement.

Seriously man, Im not discrediting you due to your sources.. I am saying, when you cant provide me anything outside of those sources which show what you are saying, then you dont have anything in my book. I dont care what sources they are.

And didnt God request two of EVERY creature? I mean, it has been awhile since I read through the bible, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it was something along those lines.

And what of the floating birds?

[imitator]

In regards to the anything is possible... How about you disprove it?

The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence.

I am willing to wager that there are a shitload of things out there that we dont know about yet, that exist. Just because we dont know about it, just because we dont have evidence at this moment in time for or against it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It just means we dont know.

The evidence we have around us isnt perfect. It has been interpretted by an imperfect being, and as such, is imperfect. We can choose to take the evidence as truth, but that would leave us to such possible follies as the belief that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth.

With what we know now, yes, some things seem apparent. But so did they back then. Science is forever expanding, and as such, we will discover more that in time may very well make the things we view today as sure and fact to be just as silly as the earth being flat.

[natureisawesome]

snowblind


ok well, the majority of evidence supports that dinosaurs and human only coexisted for a small amount of time and that dinosaurs inhabited the earth alot longer before man.

There's no way for the for the scientists to determine how long dinosaurs lived with man. There's really no way to determine how long dinosaurs have been around themselves. The fossils are dated by the layers, and the layers are dated by the fossils. All dating methods are based on assumptions and are by themselves insufficient.


if dinosaurs became carnivorus because of the downfall of man ie sin then why didnt all become carnivorus and wouldnt this mean there was a change in their thinking, in that they decided not to eat meat, then didnt care that they did.

from the evidence, it looks like some became carniverous and some didn't. A change in the thinking of animals? I suppose so, in a sense. If an animal became carniverous yes he would have different mindset. But they don't have the same level of free will that we do. God changed them to become carniverous. He could have done this directly or perhaps through some genetic information placed in the animal based on foreknoledge.


considereing the brain power of most dinosaurs was small this is highly unlikely

It wasn't their choice. It was God that did it.


the ark. ok. rite. a ship. containg 2 of every animal in the world. 2. the logistics of this are laughable. the fact one man or a handful of people made this is retarded. but mainly where is the ark ? and if this is true then we are all inbreds from a very very very very small gene pool of people left over after the floods culling. but i am also asuming that on the ark where a pair of people from all ethnic backgrounds. to allow for the localised skin pigment mutations of humans around the world

It's not retarted that one man made it at all. This is another case of judging without looking at the calculations. Review the site I posted earlier before you say it's laughable. Like I said, he had a long time to build the ark. Where is the ark you ask. It's been 5000 years and you're asking where is the ark? Where are the 6 missing wonders of the world? " we can't find them so that must mean they never existed." That's not right.

As far as being inbreds, we would be a lot closer to being inbreds than they were. As time goes on, genetic information is lost, not gained. They would have had a much larger gene pool which would have diminished through genetic drift and mutations.

As for the skin pigment, we all have the same color skin. Everyone. Itâ??s a protein called melanin. We all have the same basic skin color, just different amounts of it.


but finally i ask if the ark was real, floated saved us all. wouldnt it have been herald. preserved. saved.

where is it

It either disintegrated like all other organic material before long. Or if not, then it is frozen or preserved somewhere in some location. Doesn't matter though.


natureisawesome. please for the love of god watch the planet of the apes, especially the tribuanl scene.

Is that where you learned about evolution?

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


I think you are having a problem grasping the concept of possible vs actual.

Anything is possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Here we go again. You state anything can happen as a fact. How do you not know that there are certain laws in existence (which there are) which disallow some things? We know some things are not possible. That's based on evidence. ANd that is actually proof that not anything can happen . But anything is possible? How to you verify that is true? What evidence do you have to support it.


I can think anything I want, I can even believe specific things. It still doesn't mean that I am real, that my existence is a fact. Everything I think, everything I feel could possibly be constructed by someones dream, with the illusion of freewill.

You just made an assertion. Now you have to back it up with evidence. How do you know it could possibly constructed by someones dream? Possibilities aren't a given. If you say that it is, then show me the universal law that shows that.


And I have never once stated that I know for a fact anything at all. In fact, I think I have said the exact opposite in multiple occasions. I have beliefs that most things are how they seem, but I know that it is ignorant to assume that anything we know is actually truth and fact.

whenever you state a possibility you state a fact that it's a possibility. You've done it several times now. And you still ignore the fact that you're using your "invalid" mind to argue with me. How can you assert anything when you cannot verify anything as fact?? It's not right.


Quote:
What evidence to you have to show that may be possible? You don't have any. How do you know what is possible or not? What we know as possible is dictated by what we observe in the outside world. Don't call your imagination a fact.

Imitator:


What evidence do you have to show that it isn't possible? Once again, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

That's not how it works! You assume that all things are given as possible to begin with. You can't do that. You have to start with what you do know.


Also, are you stating that total knowledge, and everything that happens around us is limited by human knowledge and understanding? That it cant be happening if we don't know it, and see it? Human observation is severely flawed. You can be tricked many different ways while you use your observation. Hell, its one of the first things you learn in an entry level philosophy class.

I'm not stating that at all. What I'm saying is that your assertion of all possibility is without evidence. We know some things are possible in this universe, but not all things. This is determined by observation. If I say, "my dog can fly", I have made an assertion and I must show the evidence to support that. If I cannot, then It cannot be claimed as a fact. The above argument has a premise which is that your mind/consciousness is a valid tool to begin with so that doesn't help you any.



A person who relies on their observation to determine the truth or fact of something, is someone who is relying on a flawed system, and a someone who will not be able to provide solid proof of anything.

The only way to determine Truth is by observation!


Quote:
How do you know it's very likely that we exist if it supposedly can't be verified? How do you determine value? How do you know it's more likely without taking into equation the empirical evidence. So it's really only part empirical evidence, and part imagination.


I cant. Thats why I didn't say it was a fact. But, current evidence leans to wards that conclusion.

How do you verify value towards or against without recognizing facts? You can't.


I'm not going to talk about descartes. I go from the evidence. If you say there's a possibility, then you have to back it up. Otherwise it's out of the issue, it's undetermined, and has no place in determining anything.

Quote:
Once again you contradict yourself. How do you know that the matrix is a possibility? You use your mind and the outside world which you say cannot be validated to help conclude (the other part being your total imagination) something you believe is validated. That is, the possibility for such and such. It's not valid. So you use your mind to build a conclusion and you deny your mind. Go with the evidence you do have. You can never deny your mind.


Anything is a possibility, in the dreamers theory.

Anything is possible in your imagination. But not in real life. The evidence supports that.

Quote:
There's a good chance you just did it. that is, used your "unverifiable" mind to try to think of a "verifiable" refutation. You cannot escape your mind. You cannot escape reality.

Did you seriously just bring in "reality" to the table? Jesus...


Reality is easily one of the MOST argued states in philosophy. How do you prove reality? How do you prove what you experience as reality is the same as someone else? How do you disprove it?

With evidence.


You are wrong that the burden of proof is on me Imitator. You stated the fact of possibilities, and when you make an assertion, it has to be backed up with evidence. The onus is on you.

[snowblind]

hey nature is awesome, i dont agree with you but i got respect for you.

the planet of the apes reference is to show the idiosyncracities that become apparent when you present the idea of evolution against religon in the context of the film. the trial scene in particular just really highlights this for me.

as for the ark, i did a little bit of research and this site was really really informative. but seems ultimately to show that what is thought to be the ark isn't due to the use of iron work in the wood and the size.

anyway have a looksee

Noah's Ark (http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained9.htm)

i think the most interesting thing is the recitale of noahs ark in many many different cultures and tribes.

i dunno man, i like to believe there is more to life, i just see so much pain associated with religon.

[imitator]

nature.

I can answer all the things you mentioned in your last post up to and including the descartes line, like this.

If you can not disprove that it, then its a possibility.

Disprove the dreamers theory.

And for the last time, please follow me, we do not have any facts. You do not have any facts.

Also,


You just made an assertion. Now you have to back it up with evidence. How do you know it could possibly constructed by someones dream? Possibilities aren't a given. If you say that it is, then show me the universal law that shows that.

Ok, now take that EXACT SAME QUESTION, and apply it to your theory of God existing. Show me a universal law that shows that. Not theories, not coincidences, a UNIVERSAL LAW.

You wont find one, but that doesnt mean you are disproven. Just means there isnt a found law yet. It does make you look like someone who is purposely trying to put as much limiters onto something to make it impossible to be true.

We have no evidence against the dreamer theory. None. The entire idea behind it, is much similar to the idea of a god, as in its unproveable without said entity showing us. You cant prove god exists, I cant prove this is a dream. I can show you examples such as you have shown us with just as much ease, because there are alot of crazy things that happen on this planet that according to science just shouldnt happen, which could only happen in a dream. Bumblebee's anyone?

Thats the hilariously ironic part of this entire conversation we have been having. You are making all the arguements that someone would make against your statement that God exists. And they work so perfectly, in every way. The difference is, I have not once stated I believe that we are part of a dream, just that it was a possibility. Im not stating anything is the case, so if I cant stand up to your questions and demands for you to accept it, thats ok. You, on the other hand, are stating that something is the case, is a fact, that God exists. In this, you are unlike my stance, because you have to be able to stand up to those very same questions, demands, and scrutiny. And none of your arguement really stands up to yourvery own questions.

[Pass That Shit]

That's because he's trying to prove God with logic. It doesn't work that way. It's about Faith, NOT LOGIC.
Logic will not convert anyone, but Faith does. How can you prove with logic that Jesus walked on water?
We believe this happened because of our Faith in God, not because of logic!

Natureisawesome,
I'm looking forward to your reply in the thread named "In the beginning was the word"

It's clear that you know the bible, but do you know God?

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Obviously every religious follower believes that Jesus came in the flesh, but do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

[natureisawesome]

imitator



If you can not disprove that it, then its a possibility.

no, that's not how it works. The best you can say is that you don't know whether it's a possibility or not. The best you can do is claim ignorance of any possibility.


And for the last time, please follow me, we do not have any facts. You do not have any facts.

Yes I do. Lots of them.



natureisawesome:

You just made an assertion. Now you have to back it up with evidence. How do you know it could possibly constructed by someones dream? Possibilities aren't a given. If you say that it is, then show me the universal law that shows that.


Ok, now take that EXACT SAME QUESTION, and apply it to your theory of God existing. Show me a universal law that shows that. Not theories, not coincidences, a UNIVERSAL LAW.

Universal law of God's existance? It's inside of us. It's our recognition of his eternal nature. It's eternal. remember this was the exception. This is also supported by what we see and observe in the outside world. I've said that a few times now I think.


I can show you examples such as you have shown us with just as much ease, because there are alot of crazy things that happen on this planet that according to science just shouldnt happen, which could only happen in a dream. Bumblebee's anyone?

bumblebees are awesome. They're evidence of God's master design.

[natureisawesome]

pass that stuff:


That's because he's trying to prove God with logic. It doesn't work that way. It's about Faith, NOT LOGIC.
Logic will not convert anyone, but Faith does. How can you prove with logic that Jesus walked on water?
We believe this happened because of our Faith in God, not because of logic!



Mark 12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.


1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:


Natureisawesome,
I'm looking forward to your reply in the thread named "In the beginning was the word"

It's clear that you know the bible, but do you know God?

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Obviously every religious follower believes that Jesus came in the flesh, but do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God?


what are you talking about? I've posted in that thread and proved my point. I'm done.

But I do believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he is God. You're making no sense. And I quoted that verse in the thread you mentioned myself.

[imitator]

bumblebees are awesome. They're evidence of God's master design.

Thats fine. They are my evidence of the Dreamers effect upon his dream.

Also, you kinda dodged the point. Bumblebees are an amazing example of going against your requirements. There is no way to prove that they are flying. No scientific equation to explain it. It is literally, by all science known to man, impossible. And since you have said before that you can assume possibilities and what might be, only whats right infront of you, that you can observe... bumblebees are a problem.

[Pass That Shit]

pass that stuff:











what are you talking about? I've posted in that thread and proved my point. I'm done.

But I do believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he is God. You're making no sense. And I quoted that verse in the thread you mentioned myself.

What exactly did you prove? You stated that it's not proper to call Jesus the Father, go and check out that thread for the many verses that say it, if you're interested in the truth. Or do you only want to carry a conversation in your thread?

[natureisawesome]

pass that stuff:

What exactly did you prove? You stated that it's not proper to call Jesus the Father, go and check out that thread for the many verses that say it, if you're interested in the truth. Or do you only want to carry a conversation in your thread?

Actually I said it's not proper terminology, but on the other had it's true in the sense that Father, the son and Holy Spirit are one. There are verses that say that but it's not meant to mean there is no distinction at all between the two. Remember Jesus had his own will and own desires.

Fine, I'll go check it out, if you insist. It's really not what that thread was about anyways.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Thats fine. They are my evidence of the Dreamers effect upon his dream.

Also, you kinda dodged the point. Bumblebees are an amazing example of going against your requirements. There is no way to prove that they are flying. No scientific equation to explain it. It is literally, by all science known to man, impossible. And since you have said before that you can assume possibilities and what might be, only whats right infront of you, that you can observe... bumblebees are a problem.Bumblebee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Bumblebee_myths)

One for God? or at least against the dreamer's theory? :p

[snowblind]

hardcore that site says that bumblebees can fly due to dynamic stall. therefore aren't held up by god on little puppet strings

[Hardcore Newbie]

hardcore that site says that bumblebees can fly due to dynamic stall. therefore aren't held up by god on little puppet stringsIt was a joke, i don't believe in god, i just wanted to be impartial :p

[natureisawesome]

Also, you kinda dodged the point. Bumblebees are an amazing example of going against your requirements. There is no way to prove that they are flying. No scientific equation to explain it. It is literally, by all science known to man, impossible. And since you have said before that you can assume possibilities and what might be, only whats right infront of you, that you can observe... bumblebees are a problem.

Are you serious? Did you read the big words above that portion of the article that said : Bumblebee myths ? Some people made some calculations that did not take into factor certain evidence. But the article points out that the effects of dynamic stall is the known mechanism to keep the bumblebee aloft.

And even if we didn't know the scientific reason why it can keep itself aloft, the fact that it can do it is proof in itself. It's there for everyone to see. It doesn't contradict any laws.

for certain, if anything is shown to be possible, the impossibility of that thing happening is ruled out.

I really liked that article though. did you know the bee stores it's tongue in a sheath? Reminds me of the woodpecker. Now that's a good piece of evidence for creation.

[mfqr]

mfqr:



A person has to be open for something to be proven to them. There can be proof, but we value in our minds and hearts what's reasonable as proof. SOme people see things with their own eyes and it's not proof enough. For some people with some things their never enough proof. It's just a lack of faith, it's not reasonable or logical.


There's a difference between being open enough to be able to evaluate both sides of the argument and come up with your own conclusion, or remaining neutral, and being open minded to the extent that you believe everything you read/hear/see. It's a lack of faith, sure. But it doesn't make sense to have that faith without a believable story. To me, the story is fairly unbelievable. I am open-minded. Open-minded enough to say that it's a possibility, and hinted with enough narrow-mindedness to say there's not enough evidence, and thus is more improbable than probable. I think that's reasonable, don't you? I think it's pretty logical thinking, too.




can you show me some examples?


Google can. It's documented that people back in the days of Christ, and even before, have made drawings and paintings of strange objects in the sky, which look quite like the ones we imagine and see today. I am not saying it is 100% true that people back then believed they were gods. I am assuming that they would, because it's far beyond them in any sort of explanation. Remember, back then, anything out of the ordinary was supernatural.



Excuse me, but about those aliens in the bible.. can you show me some evidence please?


Like I said, google can. Again, it could have just been people's imaginations running wild. I guess there was a lot of science fiction novels being written back then (:wtf:).



And are you referring to the catholic church ? I already pointed out that the catholic church isn't Christian earlier in this thread. They're not Christian and Jesus did not teach us to have any kind of physcial warfare, the opposite actually. If you want me to explain a few things about the catholic babylon mystery religion another thread can be started about that later. ( Like when thsi thread is done at least), but otherwise let's leave the rcc out of this.


Catholicism was only used as an example. Jesus did not teach anybody to have physical war, sure, that's true. However, people obviously took it into their own hands and used religion as a form of control, whether or not your Christian God exists.



The evangicals and everyone else who votes in a Democracy all judge easch other through the ballot so everyone is guilty. But again, evangicals are obviously not Christians either. And I know their false doctrine.


Well, you believe their doctrine to be false - millions of others don't. Another example of conflicts between different faiths.



I will reiterate a previous declaration in my post. There is no morality without God. And yes, I'm a sheep and I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf.
[/quote]

There is no morality without God? That's quite the statement there. I would say I am a moral human being, and yet I do not endorse the belief of any God but myself. You'd rather be a sheep than a wolf? Are you using the "wolf" as a metaphor to describe someone who is mentally free, and at the same time using that as a comparison to a sheep, like a wolf eats sheep, and is therefore a vicious animal?

Let me get down to explaining something that might peak your interests.

There are many, many, many religions and faiths. Most religions will tell you that if you do not believe in that particular religion, that you will ultimately go to hell in the afterlife. Am I right? Well, then let's dig a bit deeper.

Everyone who believes in a particular religion believes their religion is correct, right? Obviously, because then they would not believe it. A bit deeper now...

If every religion claims you will go to hell if you do not believe in it, and you can only choose one religion, then you are ultimately doomed to go to hell. Your only way of not going to hell, in the eyes of religion, is to believe and have faith in every single religion. Of course, that is not possible either, because every religion tells you that you can only believe in that particular religion. But then again, your religion/belief is correct, right? Correct just like catholicism is correct, and Islam is correct, and Judaism is correct, and so on. Sigh. So which religion should you believe in? Any of them. Mostly all of them have the same general beliefs as to how a human being should act, and they all believe theirs is the correct one.

This is the reason why I do not choose religion to guide my life. They're all in competition, my friend. They all want to tell you how you should live your life. I say live your own life the way you want to live it... and yes, if you want to live your life being controlled by someone else's belief, then go for it. I won't, though.

Have fun :thumbsup:

[Hardcore Newbie]

This is the reason why I do not choose religion to guide my life. They're all in competition, my friend. They all want to tell you how you should live your life. I say live your own life the way you want to live it... and yes, if you want to live your life being controlled by someone else's belief, then go for it. I won't, though.

Have fun :thumbsup:We only believe in one less god than he does.

[imitator]

Bumblebee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Bumblebee_myths)

One for God? or at least against the dreamer's theory? :p

Simply part of the design of the Dreamer of course.

:p

[imitator]

I really liked that article though. did you know the bee stores it's tongue in a sheath? Reminds me of the woodpecker. Now that's a good piece of evidence for creation.


Sounds more like evidence of Dreamer design to me. I mean, its just hairball screwy enough to be a part of a dream, but realistic enough that it wouldnt stand out alot to the dreamer to make them realize it was a dream.

[mfqr]

Sounds more like evidence of Dreamer design to me. I mean, its just hairball screwy enough to be a part of a dream, but realistic enough that it wouldnt stand out alot to the dreamer to make them realize it was a dream.

Or it's a product of adaptation. There's a reason that it's like that, other than it being "neat."

And to natureisawesome, it's not evidence of creationism. Not at all. Not a good piece - not even a bad piece. It's a piece of evidence for evolution, if anything. Now I am not sure what the reason for it is, but there is. Or it could be vestigial, and had a reason to be there a long, long time ago. Point is, it either has a reason to be there, or it had a reason to be there at some point.

[jamstigator]

I read recently that the human population boom is having an unforeseen negative side effect: in the last few decades, there have been 39 "new* species popping up. If God created all life, this means that God's still out there creating new life. In this case, new diseases to kill us off, or otherwise increase the level of suffering in the land.

I believe it's just evolution taking its normal course, creating a few new species, even as existing ones die off and become extinct. But perhaps it is, in fact, a supreme being just tossing us some new sources of misery. That seems to me to imply a rather hostile god. Maybe he's not quite omnipotent, and he's trying really hard to kill us all off, and just hasn't succeeded yet. That certainly makes him a bio-terrorist, and way worse than bin Laden.

[imitator]

I read recently that the human population boom is having an unforeseen negative side effect: in the last few decades, there have been 39 "new* species popping up. If God created all life, this means that God's still out there creating new life. In this case, new diseases to kill us off, or otherwise increase the level of suffering in the land.

I believe it's just evolution taking its normal course, creating a few new species, even as existing ones die off and become extinct. But perhaps it is, in fact, a supreme being just tossing us some new sources of misery. That seems to me to imply a rather hostile god. Maybe he's not quite omnipotent, and he's trying really hard to kill us all off, and just hasn't succeeded yet. That certainly makes him a bio-terrorist, and way worse than bin Laden.

So what you are saying is, we should bomb heaven?

[jamstigator]

Once we get our troops out of Iraq, then yes, we need to send them to take out God and his disease factories! ;)

[mfqr]

I read recently that the human population boom is having an unforeseen negative side effect: in the last few decades, there have been 39 "new* species popping up. If God created all life, this means that God's still out there creating new life. In this case, new diseases to kill us off, or otherwise increase the level of suffering in the land.

I believe it's just evolution taking its normal course, creating a few new species, even as existing ones die off and become extinct. But perhaps it is, in fact, a supreme being just tossing us some new sources of misery. That seems to me to imply a rather hostile god. Maybe he's not quite omnipotent, and he's trying really hard to kill us all off, and just hasn't succeeded yet. That certainly makes him a bio-terrorist, and way worse than bin Laden.

Although there is no proof that Bin Laden is a terrorist, and there has been no solid link in saying that he actually aided in 9/11. But of course, this is all beyond the topic.

I would agree with you on the god issue, though. If there is a god, he obviously is either just fucking with us and causing chaos... or he isn't completely omnipotent and can't actually do much. I would suggest that he/she/it is a hostile god/goddess as well.

[imitator]

Although there is no proof that Bin Laden is a terrorist.

Does that invalidate the war on heaven? Can I pull a Bush on this one?

[mfqr]

Does that invalidate the war on heaven? Can I pull a Bush on this one?

The war on heaven?

[natureisawesome]

Jamstigator:


I read recently that the human population boom is having an unforeseen negative side effect: in the last few decades, there have been 39 "new* species popping up. If God created all life, this means that God's still out there creating new life. In this case, new diseases to kill us off, or otherwise increase the level of suffering in the land.

You don't mean human species do you? There are no multiple species of human. And even if there were, that doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It has to do with natural selection and genetic drift. You didn't look over that article did you.


I believe it's just evolution taking its normal course, creating a few new species, even as existing ones die off and become extinct. But perhaps it is, in fact, a supreme being just tossing us some new sources of misery. That seems to me to imply a rather hostile god. Maybe he's not quite omnipotent, and he's trying really hard to kill us all off, and just hasn't succeeded yet. That certainly makes him a bio-terrorist, and way worse than bin Laden.

Look, we already know how species are formed. We know that for a fact, that it has nothing to do with any increase in genetic information, but rather the loss of information. I don't know why nobody is getting this. Speciation does not equate to evolution.

[natureisawesome]

freespechfan:


I guess to keep the Secret Police from taking me again, I will (in a kind, respectful, and understanding way) simply add that Natureisawesome has made no relevent points that contribute to his post, aside from the beginning where he posted his views (as fact nonetheless), and I am glad to see a plethora of inteligent people bringing light to an increasingly dimming conversation.

I have made many relevant points that contribute to my post. Just because you odn't agree with them doesn't mean I havn't. I feel like that really borders on propaganda.


A+ to all the people that understand that science should be used to improve the world, and not to justify a personal religion. IMHO religion is about faith, and anyone that seeks to prove their religion has lost the true essence of it.

I firmly diagree. Science can be used to support my religion very much. Faith is not blind. Jesus never expected us to "just believe" without any support.


Besides, what if God made Science just to tempt people into trying to "Test the lord your God", and everyone that tries ends up going to hell?! Seems about as realistic as seismology proving the biblical flood, right?

That's nonsense. Looking for evidence of God isn't testing him at all. Asking for a miracle, now that can be a different matter.

[natureisawesome]

SO, I have a simple question to ask.


Do mutations cause evolution? If yes, how?

How does something that consistantly degrades life and information and causes randomness create life?

[Pass That Shit]

freespechfan:



I have made many relevant points that contribute to my post. Just because you odn't agree with them doesn't mean I havn't. I feel like that really borders on propaganda.



I firmly diagree. Science can be used to support my religion very much. Faith is not blind. Jesus never expected us to "just believe" without any support.



That's nonsense. Looking for evidence of God isn't testing him at all. Asking for a miracle, now that can be a different matter.


What religion is that?

[Staurm]

SO, I have a simple question to ask.

Do mutations cause evolution? If yes, how?

How does something that consistantly degrades life and information and causes randomness create life?

In what way are mutations degrading life?

[natureisawesome]

staurm said:


In what way are mutations degrading life?


First thing I would like to mention for you to keep in mind is that
mutations became the supposed mechanism for neo-darwinian evolution when it was shown that Darwin's original theory of pangenesis and aquired characteristics was proven false. More can be read about pangenesis here.

Pangenesis: use and disuse (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-pangenesis.asp)

Neo-darwinianism still keeps natural selection, but mutations are now added. It now teaches that new traits come about by chance from random mutations in genes and not use and disuse.

You may have seen supposed mutations take place in movies such as Teenage mutant ninja turtles where the slime covers the creatures and they turn into a new "super creature" more powerful and greater than the one before. This is not how mutations work. This is fantasy.

In the real world, mutations cause a number of defects such as hemophilia , loss of protective color in the skin and eyes (albinism), and certain kinds of cancer and brain malfunction.

There is lots of evidence that different kinds of radiations, errors in DNA replication, and certain chemicals can indeed produce mutations, and mutations in reproductive cells can be passed on to future generations.

One example of a common mutation experiment is fruit flies. People have been hitting these bugs with mutations for decades and decades. Some of the effects of mutations are shorter wings, very short wings, curled wings, spread-apart wings, miniature wings, wings without cross veins. But there has never once been an increase in genetic information. In some genetics classes, students cross different fruit flies and work out inheritence patterns.

There are several challanges for evolution when it comes to mutations. One of them is mathmatical. This problem is written in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

Mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule . Thatâ??s fairly rare. On the other hand, itâ??s not that rare.

The mathmatical problem for evolution comes when it needs a series of related changes. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 10 to 7th x 10 to 7th, or 10 to 14th. Thatâ??s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion.

Two mutations might cause a slightly longer wing. This is a long way from producing a new structure, and a really long way from
changing the fly into a new organism. What then would be the chance of getting three mutations in a row? One in a billion trillion (1021). The oceans aren't even big enough to hold enough bacteria for you to be able to likely find one with three simultaneous or three sequential and related mutations.

How about four related mutations? The earth isn't even big enough to holdenough organisms to make it likely. That's one in 10 to 28th. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ! It would take many more mutations than this even to cause any real start into evolution. Very soon, the mathematics become astronomically huge.

At this point some evolutionists have given up on the classic idea of evolution because it obviously doesn't work. It was at this level ( four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds were just too great. They looked for another solution, and they found it. Using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods, they discovered that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics ever before commercial antibiotics were developed.

Genetic variability was built right into the bacteria. Resistant forms were already there to begin with. Also, certain bacteria have little rings of dna called plasmids they trade around themselves and they passed on resistance to antibiotics.

Bacteria can be made resitant to antibiotics by mutations, but these are really "crippling" effects. The mutation typically damages some growth factor, and the mutationally crippled bacteria can hardly even survive outside a lab. The reistance carried by plasmids though is from enzymes made to break down the antibiotic, and this resistance is by design.

One idea why God would create anibiotic resistance in organisms is to balance the growth of prolific organisms in the soil. Only after the fall did some bacteria become disease causers.

drug resistance in bacteria does not show evolution, and it doesn't even show the production of favorable mutations. It does show natural selection or a sort of artificial selection but only selection within existing variations in a kind.

But evolutionsts also beleve that Time will solve the problem. But even with 5 billion years, that's only about 10 to 17 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 10 to 80th atoms.

Here is one telling encounter evolutionists had with this problem back in 1967:




Way back in 1967, a prestigious group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.10 All present were evolutionists, and they agreed, as the preface clearly states, that no one would be questioning evolution itself. The only question was, could mutations serve as the basisâ??with natural selectionâ??as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians: no. Just plain no!

Emotions ran high. After a particularly telling paper by Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, the chairman of the gathering, C. H. Waddington, said, â??Your argument is simply that life must have come about by special creation!â?� The stenographer records, â??Schutzenberger: No! Voices: No!â?� Anything but creation; it wasnâ??t even fair (in spite of the evidence!) to bring up the word.

Dr. Waddington later called himself, impressively, a â??post-neo-Darwinist,â?� someone who believes in evolution, but who also believes that mutation-selection cannot explain how evolution can occur. Many research evolutionists (but not many textbook writers or teachers) recognize the need for a new generation of evolutionists to forge the â??post-neo-Darwinian synthesis.â?�

Now mutations are also going the wrong way as far as evolution is concerned. Almost every mutation known is identified by the disease or abnormality it causes. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of diseases and parasites, hereditary defects, and the loss of traits. Time and chance and random changes do just what you'd expect: tear things down and make matters worse.

By producing defects or blocking the function of genes, mutations have introduced numerous genetic abnormalities into the human population.

Human beings now have over 3500 mutational disorders. Thankfully, we don't show all the defects we carry.The reason they donâ??t show up is that we each have two sets of genes, one set of genes from our mothers and another set from our fathers. The â??bad genesâ?� we inherit from our mothersâ?? side are usually covered up by our fathersâ?? genes, and vice versa.

When an animal is born with one set of genes, like a textbook example of a turkey which was born from an unfertilized egg and had one set of chromasomes. The bird couldn't hold it's head up, it bobbed up and down from a neurological disorder. The feathers were missing in patches and ultimately it had to be moved to a germ free chamber because it's disease resistance was low.

Evolutionists recognize the problem of trying to explain onward and upward evolution on the basis of mutations that are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful. No evolutionist believes that standing in front of X-ray machines would improve human beings. No evolutionist argues that destruction of the earthâ??s ozone layer is good because it increases mutation rates and, therefore, speeds up evolution. Evolutionists know that decrease in the ozone layer will increase mutation rates, but they, like everyone else, recognize that this will lead only to increased skin cancer and to other harmful changes. Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be drowned in a sea of harmful changes.

Because harmful mutations so greatly outnumber any supposed helpful mutations, it's now unwise and even illegal in some states to marry someone closely related to you because it greatly increases the odds that the bad genes will show up.

Mutations are often carried by recessive (hidden) genes and are difficult to elimate by selection and tend to build up in populations.

Benefitial mutations are not theorecially impossible though. Bacteria that loseb the ability to digest certain sugars can regain the ability byu mutation. It's not helpful for evolution though because the bacteria only gets back to where it started.

There is only one common benefitial mutation given by evolutionists as proof of evolution, and this is sickel cell anemia. Sickle cell animia creates a resistance to maleria in it's carriers. But sickel cell anemia is a disease itself, and the cost is high: 25% of the children of carriers can die of sickle-cell anemia, and another 25% are subject to malaria. Obviously this is not an example of evolution.

There are many other examples of mutations â??beneficialâ?� to people: seedless grapes, short-legged sheep, hairless dogs, but these are all harmful to the organism in its own environment and, harmful in evolutionary perspective.

It's not that benefitial mutations are theoretically impossible, it's just that the price is too high. To explain evolution by the gradual selection of beneficial mutations, you must also factor in the millions of harmful mutations that would have to occur aas well

Time only makes the problem worse. Thanks to our accumulated genetic burden, serious hereditary defects are present in perhaps 5% of all human births, and that percentage greatly increases among the children of closely related parents. All of us have some genetic errors, and itâ??s really only by common consent ( and ignorance) that most of us call each other â??normal.â?�

If early evolutionists knew what we know now about mutations, itâ??s unlikely that mutations would ever have been proposed as machanism for evoluntionary progress

Most mutations are caused by radiation or replication errors. But what do you have to have before you can have a mutation? The gene has to be there first, before the radiation can hit it or before it can make a copying mistake. In It's as simple as that: the gene has to be there before it can mutate. All you get as a result of mutation is just a varied form of an already-existing gene, i.e., variation within kind..

In this light, mutations actually presuppose creation.


Random changes in the complex coded information in living organisms are usually lethal, harmful or useless and even the rare â??beneficialâ?? mutations, e.g. wingless beetles on windy islands and fish in caves with shrivelled eyes, are information losses.

I continue to suggest you study information science, and especially the book by Werner gitt, In the beginning was information:

In the Beginning Was Information - Answers Bookstore (http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-Was-Information,4631,226.aspx)

Or if you're running short on time you can even get the 53 min. movie:

In the Beginning Was Information - Answers Bookstore (http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-Was-Information,4778,229.aspx)

Here is an a more technical article on mutations if you care to read:


part 1: A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp)

part2: Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp)

[natureisawesome]

I find it funny that you don't seem to want to use faith (which is one of the main pillars of not only Christianity, but Judiasm, Islam, ect.) but seek to justify your faith by interpreting scientific data and forming a conclusion and presenting it as fact.

Like I said, Jesus never said that our faith was to be without any proof or foundation, and indeed the bible actually says the opposite. I do very much use faith. Paul tells us what faith is:


Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What I hope for is spiritual, and I have Spiritual evidence, but it cannot be seen, and therefore requires believe. But this in no way negates the Spiritual proof. By the invisible recognition of God's nature and the invisible understanding of my mind I interpret the evidence of all creation and confirm through faith that the worlds were created by his Spiritual word. I recognize and compare Spiritual with Spiritual. You cannot recognize Spiritual nature without spiritual understanding, and you cannot recognize design without recognition of intelligence.




every time science and religion have clashed (mainly back in the days when the church ruled all) Religion has been there to bash science over the head and stuff it back in the closet, yet now religion wants to be friends?

What do you mean, every time they clashed? You're not referring to the same old tired and misused examples of galileo and capornicus are you? The scientific discoveries never contradicted the bible at all, in fact they actually confirmed it! It was the conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. It was not a conflict between science and Scripture but science and men. In reality, the bible has never contradicted science.


It isn't hard to see why a group of people that have a history of repressing ideas that contradict them lacks credulity when it comes to using science (something they have a history of not agreeing with), and I personally feel that if science is going to be used by anyone, let it be the actual scientists, the ones that actually understand it, and aren't simply using it as a means to their own end.

Anyone can do science experiments, not just people who believe in evolution. I enjoy very much doing science experiments. And creation scientists who work hard to earn their degrees (very often at secular/evolution biased colleges) are just as much scientists if not more. They have had to struggle very hard to survive in a world of wrongful discrimination and loss of jobs and rejection of grants because of their beliefs and prejudice and character assasination rule the day. Evolutionists would have made a bloody uproar if they were in the same situation, but they continue to discriminate against them wrongly.


Im sure Darwin never said to himself "hey, let me try to use science to disprove God!"

Actually, the very reason Darwin was motivated to develop evolution was for that very purpose, to disprove God. This can be shown to be obviously true. It would take me too long to explain it so read here:

Darwinâ??s real message: have you missed it? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/darwin.asp)


it seems everything you have posted thus far is just scrabbling around the "science bin" to look for ideas that might help support Christianity, while ignoring everything and everyone that disagrees (the vast majority btw). Now I might seem cynical, but I am actually religious, and if you happen to somehow "prove God", I'll be just as happy as you, I just don't see it happening.

So what if I do scrabble around for evidence for creation. There's certainly a lot I can scrabble. But I don't need to scrabble, there is plenty of evidence for creation that can be shown from the records of science. You point out that it's the majority view, but actually most Americans don't fully agree with materialistic evolution. And if even most Americans did, that doesn't prove anything. Majority doesn't make it right.

[imitator]

I know its a moot point, because you will respond with some sort of "logic" as to why its ok, but can you seriously find an arguement that you didnt have your proof from answers in genesis?

That and trueorigin.

I am not discrediting your sources here, no matter what my opinion on them. But it seems like you can only tackle an arguement if there is something on one of those two websites to support you.

Its great you found a reference that helps you out, its another to depend solely on said reference for your point.

The real question is, can you find the same answers you are getting from these websites, elsewhere? Widely elsewhere, or narrowly elsewhere?

At this point in time, honestly, at least to me, you would have more credability by just leaving the links to those websites out. It really is starting to look like nothing more then a crutch for you, and your inability to grasp or tackle any subjects that are brought up unless you can find a link to something in AiG is telling.

[natureisawesome]

I know its a moot point, because you will respond with some sort of "logic" as to why its ok, but can you seriously find an arguement that you didnt have your proof from answers in genesis?

That and trueorigin.

I am not discrediting your sources here, no matter what my opinion on them. But it seems like you can only tackle an argument if there is something on one of those two websites to support you.

Its great you found a reference that helps you out, its another to depend solely on said reference for your point.

The real question is, can you find the same answers you are getting from these websites, elsewhere? Widely elsewhere, or narrowly elsewhere?

At this point in time, honestly, at least to me, you would have more credibility by just leaving the links to those websites out. It really is starting to look like nothing more then a crutch for you, and your inability to grasp or tackle any subjects that are brought up unless you can find a link to something in AiG is telling.

I'll tell you the truth. I'm not a scientist. I'm not even a genius. But I do understand the things I get from websites and I try to find things other people can understand too. There are several reasons I use websites as a reference/source of information. One is it's more credible than my word alone, they have scientists working hard. ANother is because it would take me too long sometimes to type everything and it's more reasonable to get it from a source. Third, everything we learn is from an outside source anyways so what's the big deal. There are more than a few creation websites other than AIG, but I find them to be easier to navigate and I'm more familiar with their beliefs. Also there are some ideas among creationists that don't exactly match up such as how the flood happened or the ice age. ANd then there are wackos who have some good things to say but are otherwise wackos such as Kent Hovind who is currently serving ten years in prison for tax evasion. So you have to be careful. The creation movement is still small and underfunded compared to evolution and so there are fewer resources. But many Christians are working hard and there is headway being made such as the huge new Creation Museum.

It's not fair, Imitator to discredit the creation websites I use simply because they support creation which you are convinced is not credible. I could do the same thing to evolution, and the only thing you would seem to have on your side is larger opinion, which is irrelevant. Don't discriminate them simply because of their belief but based on the evidence they show. Remember that Darwin himself had a view that was minority and heretical to many, but being heretical to someone does not in itself prove it's falsehood. It's the reasons for it's hereticity that are what's important. So focus on the information and evidence and less on my resources, which are by and large credible PhD scientists.

And I've used several other creation sources besides the two you've mentioned so that's not true.

[imitator]

I'll tell you the truth. I'm not a scientist. I'm not even a genius. But I do understand the things I get from websites and I try to find things other people can understand too. There are several reasons I use websites as a reference/source of information. One is it's more credible than my word alone, they have scientists working hard. ANother is because it would take me too long sometimes to type everything and it's more reasonable to get it from a source. Third, everything we learn is from an outside source anyways so what's the big deal. There are more than a few creation websites other than AIG, but I find them to be easier to navigate and I'm more familiar with their beliefs. Also there are some ideas among creationists that don't exactly match up such as how the flood happened or the ice age. ANd then there are wackos who have some good things to say but are otherwise wackos such as Kent Hovind who is currently serving ten years in prison for tax evasion. So you have to be careful. The creation movement is still small and underfunded compared to evolution and so there are fewer resources. But many Christians are working hard and there is headway being made such as the huge new Creation Museum.

It's not fair, Imitator to discredit the creation websites I use simply because they support creation which you are convinced is not credible. I could do the same thing to evolution, and the only thing you would seem to have on your side is larger opinion, which is irrelevant. Don't discriminate them simply because of their belief but based on the evidence they show. Remember that Darwin himself had a view that was minority and heretical to many, but being heretical to someone does not in itself prove it's falsehood. It's the reasons for it's hereticity that are what's important. So focus on the information and evidence and less on my resources, which are by and large credible PhD scientists.

And I've used several other creation sources besides the two you've mentioned so that's not true.

I specifically, literally, specifically stated that I wasnt even touching the whole thing of credibility from your sources. I seriously do wonder if you read, or if you just skim and then assume what the entire post stated, because this isnt the first time you completely missed the mark on what someone actually said.

I do not care about the credibility. They can be 100%, or completely wrong. It matters very little to me in regards to what I was addressing.

My whole point behind this is, when someone is leaning almost exclusively on one specific source of information, I begin to question if they really understand, and believe everything being provided.

Sure, its easy, and not a bad idea, to give an example of something that is well written and thought out every once in awhile. Sometimes its just not feasible to type everything up, or you just feel that the link explains things more elegently then you can yourself.

But at this point, I think you could probably just make a single post saying, "read all of AiG", and you woudl accomplish the same thing.

Also, its great to show information from a "non-partisan" source, so to speak. Any information coming from a source that explicitly states that they are trying to show something specific, is going to be biased. Out of curiousity, since I havent taken the time to look myself, how many articles are in AiG or the other sites, that arent pro-creationism?

I am going to assume none, although if I am wrong, then I apologize for assuming. If you provide examples from outside of places that are cherrypicking information to prove their point, it makes your point seem less, flimsy.

If you provide me a link from a pro-life website, I know to expect prolife things, and expect it to be slanted towards pro-life. Same with pro-choice. But if you provide me a link from a site that is neither pro-life or pro-choice, I dont know what to expect, and it makes things seem less biased.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Your information could all be correct, I will not get into the information being right or wrong, since that isnt the point of all of this. The point is, diversify. Show me an article that shows what you are talking about from a Science journal. Show me an article from a source that isnt exclusively pro-creationism.

Providing links from a pro-whatever site when you are pro-whatever is perfectly fine, in the right amounts. And I stand corrected, you have linked to other sites, but from what I can see, none of them stray from the pro-creationistic viewpoint. People are going to tend to take things with a grain of salt when they are being told it from an obviously, and self admitted, biased source. Its immediately called into question, no matter the legitimacy, and is usually put under alot more scrutiny.

You have already, although usually in a general martyristic sort of way, said the same thing of those who are pro-evolution. How there is such a bias in science, and people are mocked for being pro-creation, and claimed that evolution is wrong. Yet those who are pro-evolution could provide you plenty of sites that dispute what your sites say, and have their own "proof" that what they say is correct. Would you accept that they are all reliable sources and not have any skepticism towards what they say because of their bias?

I wouldnt take anything either side says as truth, only as a viable possibility. Everyone who tells you anything is trying to get you to believe what they say, and not something else. Sometimes what they tell you is correct, sometimes it isnt, but it doesnt change the fact that everyone has an agenda, and everyone wants to sway you one way or another.

There is a possibility that God(s) exists, and a possibility that your specific God exists. There is a possibility everything in the bible did happen, and that no other gods exist besides God.

There is also the possibility that there is no God(s). That the universe was created in some sort of manner similar to the Big Bang Theory. There is a possibility that everything we see here is nothing more then one giant coincidence, and the product of millions of years of time.

There is also the possibility that we are all a part of some beings dream, and none of this really exists. Supernatural things that are seen are crazy portions of the beings dream, and anything that just doenst make sense is because of the dreamer.

We cant prove any of those three things right or wrong at the moment. We have evidence for all of them, for or against, but no proof. We cant state without a doubt that one of them is true and all others are false.

You however, have stated that your belief is correct, that God exists, that evolution is wrong, and you and your beliefs are right. Thats a pretty solid stance, and I think a stance deserving of evidence outside of pro-yourstance sites. I am not stating that your views and stance is incorrect, merely that if you are going to state something with certainty, then you should be able to adequately back it up. Providing nothing but links from pro sites, isnt adequate.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator, are you telling me that such media sources as Time, nature, national geographic, nova etc. are not biased? Are you saying the popular scientific Journals are not biased towards evolution? They are indeed. Even the news is biased, they are supposed to be trained to do things in an unbiased way but it can never be completely unbiased, because it's always given from the perspective of biased people. There is no such thing as unbiased, and thus there is no "meeting ground" where they can meet in an unbiased fashion. The best that can be done is to show together the perspectives from both sides together, and let others determine. These two ideas are clearly at odds and irreconcilable, and every single person is biased. I really wish you understood the discrimination that takes place against creationist, even when it comes to deciding what is put in professional science journals.

You can search the tj journal archives here. I think this journal was discontinued by it is renamed as journal of creation:

TJ Magazine Archive (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/)



There is also the crs quarterly:

CRS Quarterly (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html)

Christian Research Institute : Journal

CRI Journal Articles I (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crijnl.html)

CSM Journal - Creation Science Movement

Creation Science Movement (http://www.csm.org.uk/journals.php?PHPSESSID=925eba30e1b7fae13533632afc4 dffcb)

CTNS Bulletin Quarterly journal by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences

CTNS--Publications (http://www.ctns.org/publications.html)

Science and Christian Belief : Journal by Christians in Science

Christians in Science - Journal (http://www.cis.org.uk/journal.shtml)

Creation/Evolution Reference Database ***Searchable Archive of Numerous Journals***

CERD: Creation/Evolution Reference Database (http://www.baz.com/litm/CERD/)

And there are other magazines and journals. Do I really have the time to review all that? NO! Is it reasonable for me to do so? NO! It's best to keep it simple.

[imitator]

There are places who are unbiased. There are unbiased reports done through many places. I find alot of interesting things from University based studies. Even if something isnt entirely unbiased, you can find things that arent as biased as others. A website that is entirely pro-creationism/evolutionism is the most biased thing you can find when you are searching for information on those two subjects. You cant get more biased then that.

I will tell you right now, that I expected that exact arguement from you. Its the typical one. Please, show me examples of where well thought out, formulated essays and theories founded upon the theory of creationism werent given the same exposure as similarly well formulated essays and theories on evolution.

I have yet to see a scientific journal of any kind not publish a well written, and varifiable essay/thesis, no matter what the subject. The key is, is the science there, and is it provable? If it isnt, no matter what the subject is, it wont get in. And you are rooting for a theory that is largely unprovable(God existing, creating the earth). There are some very very big blaring holes in the theory, which doesnt mean its not correct, but certainly means it is not provable by any means currently.

But just to clarify, you are stating that there is a concerted effort by a large group of people, to try to hinder or prevent the publication and exposure of the theory of creationism? That people are purposely, for no other reason then the subject of the thesis/esasy, rejecting the work of creationist scientists, who are putting out work that is just as good, if not better then the work they publish instead?

Its not unconceivable, but highly unlikely, considering there are plenty of articles in US based scientific publications that were pro-pot, and thats not the general concensus in regards to this country, and the government. Ive seen plenty of unpopular, or highly criticized articles published, because they were so well written, and were high quality thesis'. So this would, literally, be a first for me to see that there is a concerted effort by some large body of people, to purposely hinder and prevent the publication of creationistic theories and thesis papers.

[imitator]

I was just watching Colbert Report, an old one, that had a paleantologists(sp) on there, who had discovered a fossil from 375 million years ago, that was a link between fishes and the first land creatures. It had parts of a land creature in it, and still parts of a fish, and was believed to live in shallow water and ventured onto land occasionally.

It was called Tiktaalik, and here is a link to a transcript of a Nature documentary on its discovery.

: Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v440/n7085/nature-2006-04-06.html)

I think thats a pretty good example of evolution in action right there.

[TOOL9]

I hope you didnt type all that stuff... and if you did how long did it take?

[jdmarcus59]

Some people don't think that faith and science are compatible. This is to demonstrate that is not the case and that science plays a part in helping to confirm God's existence and reveal his divine nature. This is to demonstrate one path to God. There is contained within both evidence for God's existence and attributes from the nature of the physical universe, and also evidence from direct communication from God and mankind.

Finding out whether God exists or not is not just for philosophers and genius scientists. it's something we all should try to learn and find out. If a loving God exists, there must be evidence that the average person can understand.

This is not completely exhaustive but a path formed using science, logic, and deductive reasoning. It also analyzes and critiques different philosophies and religions. It must be made clear that this is in no way meant to personally attack and harm any reader of this regardless of his religious or philosophical beliefs, but is a serious discourse with an effort show a path to the Christian God using science, logic, reason. This is of course biased just like you are, and doesn't claim to be unbiased. It does not either negate faith, but shows that faith in God is reasonable and not blind but rather based upon solid and infallible proofs. I by no means take full credit for producing this article but it was mostly from Christian and creationist resources.

After reading, I invite you to share your thoughts or objections in a serious and mature manner, and am open for debate and exchange of ideas. This is long (what do you expect?), so I don't suggest you rush through it. Take a seat, relax and smoke a bowl if that helps (but not to much you'll have to think quite a bit). Here we go.

To start, I must first build upon things which I know. I must really
dig down deep. In this world today, people doubt and are critical of so much, even their own existence. I will start from what I do know and build upon that. I'm starting with no preconceived notions and no special schools of thought etc.I'll be using an open mind, logic, honesty and common sense.

Now, all logic starts with at least one assumption. And although logic is exact, if you start from a faulty premise you could get incorrect results, so you have to be careful. In geometry proofs are called givens or axioms. These are facts which must be true but are nearly impossible to prove such as 1=1.

So what is it that we can assume? What is the most basic thing? What is it that you can say that you know for sure without a doubt? Sometimes it's hard to recognize, perhaps because we do it all the time, or perhaps it's because we lack an outside perspective. The most basic thing we can can know for sure is...

You are thinking.

Which is pretty basic. You can't say you know
anything more certain than that. No matter what you do, you're always thinking, even if you think that maybe you aren't you, you still are thinking about it. If it weren't true, you wouldn't be able to say it, or read it, or anything.

Now we know for a fact that you are thinking. This is definitely a
solid fact. Some people don't believe in black and white facts, but
rather a spectrum of grays. But close magnification of this spectrum would show black and white dots, and an even closer look would show the fabric of the paper, some stained with ink and some not. If we could look even more closely we could see the molecules of ink near the molecules of paper. And we could look down deeper and deeper.

Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not. The fact is you are thinking. Which leads us to our next assumption.

Those who think exist.

Now we have two givens which are assumed to be true.

1.you are thinking
2. Those who think exist.

And if you are thinking and if thinkers exist, then you exist. A firmly
grounded conclusion by deductive reasoning. This is very important to know and painfully obvious to many. Now because of a natural law of the universe we call time, we can come to our next conclusion.

Your thought requires the passage of time.

Now what we know as thought requires the passage of time, but it remains possible there are other, higher forms of thought. No matter how you define thought, it still requires the passage of time. It also doesn't matter how you define time. Because it's the effect of time that matters at this point, and not it's nature.
One of the implications of time is that it allows for beginnings and endings.

Now imagine you were like Helen Keller only worse. Imagine you were blind and deaf, and you have no senses at all, no outside stimulation, unable to recognize your bodies position. And you were that way from birth. You would never be able to know the outside world existed.

But how do we know? How do we know that anything exists outside of you? Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove. And besides, all evidence suggests that everything else is just as real as you.

The outside world exists.

This is a big assumption, but one that we all had to learn at a
very early age, for instance when we recognized our parents as
sources of food. This assumption is very important, because we couldn't have gone on further without it. Now we can move on to explore the outside world. One of the discoveries you will make about the outside world is that every action creates an equal reaction. This is newtons third law of motion. Another way of saying it is that events do not occur without a cause. Nothing moves without being first pushed or pulled or affected first. This is not opinion, but fact firmly supported by everything so far, and also every single empirical observation that's ever been made.

Another thing you might find in the outside world is something called the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the energy that atoms and molecules have as they interact with each other. There are three major rules that all things must obey regarding thermodynamics. These can be described in very complex terms or very simple terms .Here they are:

1st law says: energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
2nd law says: the entropy of the universe is always increasing.
3nd law says: the average temperature of all matter can never reach zero.

Entropy by the way, is a measure of the unavailability of a systemâ??s energy to do work.

When any physical thing interacts with another, the 1st law of
thermodynamics says energy is never lost and never created. Even when a fire is put out or something explodes.The total energy of the universe remains the same. You can never get more than you start with.

Th second law says entropy is always growing. This can be stated other ways, like the energy available to do work, is always decreasing. Or, some of the energy put into process is lost to friction. This means no perpetual motion machines. All things go from an ordered state to a disordered state, and from complex organization to complete regularity.

It's as if all the energy in the universe were in an hour glass, so that as time passes the energy is used and falls into the bottom of the hourglass, where it becomes less useful, or useless. All of the energy in the universe is becoming unavailable to do work ever again. When it's used up, it's all over. This is the second law of thermodynamics, and it is the most rigorously tested law in all of science.

There are two "exceptions" to the second law though. The first one is life. If the forces behind the second law had their way, our bodies would deteriorate within a short time. But life has a way to overcome this problem. It's as if life is walking up an escalator, and the 2nd law drags you down just as it's stepping up. How does life delay a fundamental law of the universe? It doesn't actually.

You and your environment decay at a certain rate. But since you are alive you can eat part of your environment. As a result that piece of food is decayed very rapidly, and you remain less degraded.

How does life channel the energy found in food into the specific
functions of maintaining it's delicate and intricate structures? A major part of any living cell is it's blueprint, it's DNA. These blueprints are designs for the cellular machinery which is designed so it can acquire energy from food, carry on the functions of life, and duplicate itself over and over again. It works because it makes a path of less resistance making probable what would otherwise be impossible.

The degradation of information bearing systems such as DNA and the 2nd law are related. The link to how the 2nd law applies to energy and information is found in thermodynamic probability, a field pioneered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1896 and confirmed by Max Plank in 1912. Modern statistical thermodynamics is used to clearly show that information is subject to the same degrading force that constantly increases the amount of entropy in our universe.

The second "exception" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only way to make progress up the escalator. Things can only be more organized by intention. Intelligence and the ability to apply force are required to assemble a computer for instance, or a submarine, or a watch.

Some people think that life can increase it's complexity on it's own without intelligent direction.And although no one has ever seen it happen, and even though it would be a violation of the second law, alot of people claim it's a fact regardless.

The third law of thermodynamics really doesn't matter at this point.

we need one more thing now before we can use the first two laws of thermodynamics. it's a consequence of time. It's the possibility for beginnings and endings. When you started this book, you knew that it would end, and your own life will end someday.

In fact, all complexity will "end" eventually. Even the universe will end at some point. If things continue on as they have the entropy in the universe will reach it's maximum level and no energy will be left to do work. The stars will burn out, all life will die, and the average temperature will be very close to absolute zero. The second law is our guarantee of utter and complete demise.

Also, because a thing is degrading toward and end not only implies there was a beginning, it necessitates one. Because the energy available to do work decreases with time, and since the total amount of energy to do work cannot exceed the amount available the furthest one can extrapolate back in time is the point where they were equal. This is the earliest possible date. That is, a beginning. We can also say that the universe needed an original source of motion. We can see that an original source of kinetic energy was required because

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.

Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.

Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.

Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.

The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.

Now to discuss the presence of order and complexity. A very similar argument can be used to show that because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with. Now remember that order can only come from intelligence able to direct force.

Some may say that life can do the job without the intelligence by evolution. But even if this were possible, who would have created the first life form or the low levels of chemical entropy throughout the universe? Our universe must have had an original designer. Something to reduce entropy and increase complexity.

That the entropy can decrease on it's own is quite impossible. As a result it will never happen, and it never has.Unless that is, you believe in miracles.

The fact that the universe exists and that life exists is nothing short of a miracle. A miracle is something that happens even though it's physically impossible. Is that a contradiction? No , here's why. If we know that low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.

Motion and complexity exist, and the universe cannot provide either one. But rather, it's losing complexity and randomizing all motion. Not only is the universe unable to sustain itself, it could never have even begun by itself. Our universe is unable to stand alone, and something else must exist. There is a word for this .

It's called the supernatural.

The very things that necessitate the existence of the supernatural can tell us something about it. If we look back we'll see that something outside of our universe was responsible for decreasing entropy. Something had to have worked in the opposite direction of the second law to establish higher degrees of complexity. Life and large amounts of energy available to do work, could not have spontaneously appeared in our universe without outside help. Something outside of the universe must have been responsible for their presence originally.

Complexity is a state of low entropy and high specific order. In contrast, nature forces all things toward regularity, like the the molecules of a crystal, or towards disorder as seen in molecules of gas. This kind of regularity btw is the opposite of complexity and contains little or no information.

The second thing we know of the supernatural is that something was necessary to get things moving in our universe. The "prime mover" must be there somehow.

With what's been discussed so far we can't really talk about other things like whether there's a realm beyond that one, or whether the place is big or small or whether size or time or dimension even matter.The only thing that can be discussed at this point is the part of the supernatural which gave our universe order and complexity. So what is the nature of that thing? Well for one it exists, and that it never needed to be started, because if not, then the thing which started it is the thing which didn't need to be started. Either way, there's something supernatural which has always existed. we can know that for sure because we know that we exist and that something started us. That thing would be in the same spot we're in that is, if it wasn't inherently eternal.

Something must ultimately be responsible for the condition and existence of everything else. If you don't agree, try imagining another scenario. In order to deviate from the logical path we're on, you would have to imagine that one or more of the laws of the physical universe was not always the way it is now. (contrary to what all modern scientific knowledge is based upon). Or you could imagine that an outside realm could spontaneously generate a decaying universe like ours without intention, being eternal itself. But this scenario is a kind of super universal pantheism which cannot fulfill the requirements of existence that the universe needs. It's needs not just force, but complexity donated as well. This requires an intelligence with the ability to direct force.

Something supernatural must have started our universe and designed systems of high complexity. We know that this is valid because the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in our universe energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the source for energy in moving things must be supernatural.

According to modern science, it turns out that matter and energy are interchangeable : E=mc2 . They're two sides of the same coin. This has implications when we talk about what a prime mover is. It means that energy in the form of motion (kinetic energy) was provided by an outside source. But what about the matter that was being moved? Because matter and energy are so similar we can see the issue has already been addressed. If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.

If a thing provides the energy for the creation and motion of all other things, that thing is called all powerful because it must be the ultimate source for all energy regardless of what form that energy takes. If something provides the energy so that all other things can exist, then it is the foundation of all that exists. It is the foundation of all existence and it is self sustaining therefore it is eternal. If we stopped here we'd be left with a sort of universal pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that the universe is the ultimate self sustaining and eternal power.

But as things stand, it would rather be the realm outside of the universe that is the ultimate power, which is really just a magnified version of pantheism.

complex organization can only come from intelligent design. Left to themselves all things fall apart. Only an intellect can reverse the process through intentional construction. Not one incident of spontaneous generation of a complex organized system has never been seen. for good reason. It's impossible.

Next to point out a common misconception that many people have. The subject is evolution and the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution.

Macro evolution is the process that causes a certain species to gain complexity and become a higher species. This is what is typically meant when referring to the term evolution. This is the process that allows a multicellular organism to to develop new organs for sight or movement, or a dinosaur to develop wings and feathers to become a bird. This process is also what allows for the presence of extremely complex chemical processes in cells which before had only simple ones.

There is a separate and very different process known as micro evolution. Micro evolution is the scientific term for minor changes in living organisms. Micro evolution cannot change one animal into a better one, but it can make some changes that better suit the animal. The process allows for different breeds of dog or horse for example.It also allows for wild animals to adapt to small changes in their environment. It is usually reversible and it's extremely important for the survival of all life on earth.

The difference for these two is in how the animals change. In micro evolution the animals genes are reshuffled so that different genes can be used in the next generation.Here's an example.

Two squirrels who both have a gene for white color (b) and a gene for black color (B) would have children that are a mixture. 25% would get BB and would be black. 50% would get a big B and a little b and would be grey.. 25% would get bb and would be white.

One generation of gray squirrels may find that the trees in the forest are much darker than before. As a result those squirrels who are black (BB) would hide among the tress from predators more easily and be more common than any squirrel with a light colored gene (b). If the trees stay dark for a long time then the gene for light color may even be lost.

Macro evolution is different. It requires that random changes in the genetic code (mutations) result in a new gene never before seen, which has a new function. If the function is good, it will pass it on to it's children. For example a squirrel might find that one of it's children has grown sharp barbs on it back instead of fur. A new gene has arisen from accidental events in the parents reproductive organs. The result is that none of the wolves want to eat the new squirrel. The squirrel has many children and passes on the new trait.

This is how a single cells genetic code would eventually become complex enough to grow a large animal. Of course, it would take many many years for this to happen....

In summary micro evolution uses information already present in the animal to allow small changes in the animal's characteristics while macro evolution depends on new information forming on accident. Of course, an information losing mutation may give an animal a survival advantage over it's peers, but macro evolution depends on not only having a survival advantage, but also an increase in information and complexity.

There's a problem then. Macro evolution depends on blind chance and the laws of the universe, they always become less complex, not more. In addition macro evolution has never been observed. Therefore macro evolution is a fiction.

fiction -
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

Unfortunately micro evolution is often used to try to prove that evolution is a fact. even the term micro evolution is misleading. Two very different ideas.

So why would anyone believe in a fiction? The only reason to hold onto the feasibility of macro evolution is that it's attached to a larger question, which takes us back to the topic before. We are forced to admit that our universe was given high levels of complexity. But what's capable of doing this? It of course. We already know that It is all powerful. we can also say that It is infinitely intelligent.

Why? If it designed and created all things, then it knows the details about all things. This attribute is called omniscience.This includes the future, because even space-time, the fabric within which all matter and energy exists requires an origin. Therefore if time is a created thing then it's creator must exist independent of it. It can see the end of time just as easily as the beginning. It knows all things, past, present, and future. After all that there's really nothing left to know. Therefore we have discovered the existence of a being that is:

1. All powerful
2. Infinitely intelligent
3. all knowing
4 and the creator of all things.

The proper title of such a being is you guessed it : God.

God-
A being conceived as the perfect omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.The principal object of worship in monotheistic religions.
- The American heritage dictionary / second college edition

Now we know that God exists, but there are still some things we don't know.we don't know if God is the only thing supernatural, or if there are other things out there as well. we also don't know what God is beyond what we've gone through. So, who is God?

Which God is God? Is it important that we know who God is? Does God have many names? Which religion, if any are correct? can they all be right? Does God want us to know? Can we really know anything more?

There are many things that we already do know that can help us answer those difficult questions. Most religions claim to know the answers to them all. But if it matters and we know the answers and God allows us to find them then God would have provided the means for finding everything we need to know. What this means is that it is possible for one or more existing religions to be correct.

It also remains possible that none of them are correct and God has chosen to remain anonymous. But if God did want to be known, it is impossible that God might fail. God is omnipotent and omniscient including perfect knowledge of the future.It is impossible that a perfectly powerful and all knowing God would fail to accomplish any goal. Now, where does that leave things?

Back at the beginning, apparently. We'll start with what we know about God already and use deductive reasoning. we will compare our discoveries with what all of the religions teach. This will go faster than you think.If nothing else the possibilities can at least be narrowed down. Since we've discovered that there is an all powerful God, and since several religions teach differently, we can already make an important observation. All of the religions can not be valid. Now to analyze the religions by category.

The most powerful category is this one : atheism vs. theism. Since we know God exists this is very easy to categorize. All world views that are atheistic are false.

Darwinism
humanism
naturalism
Marxism
materialism
dialectic materialism
evolutionary systems

These cannot tell us anything about who God is. The public schools should be informed of this.All philosophies that deny the existence of God are incorrect. Now to the next category : pantheism vs. supernaturalism. If you'll look back you'll remember that pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is God, that it has always existed and is responsible for creating life. But remember our universe is unable to create anything but degradation. It is inadequate, it can't even sustain itself, let alone create life.

Therefore all religions that are pantheistic are false religions:

Buddhism
Hinduism
Astrology
New age philosophies
Unity religions

This has dealt with alot of religions, and has definitely given you something to think about for sure. But remember our results are based on logic and firmly grounds proofs. To deny the results are true would be to deny one or more of those assumptions. If you think one of these is unreasonable, by all means try to come up with an alternative and work through the consequences yourself. But before you do, remember that pantheism can revealed to be false by the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is the most rigorously tested law in all of science. The only assumptions you could deny to save pantheism would be the ones before the 2nd law:

- All events are caused
- possibility for beginnings and endings
- the outside world exists
- your thoughts require the passage of time
- you exist
- thinkers exist
- you are thinking

I wouldn't feel good about getting rid of any of those. But some people do. For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.

The next category to analyze is polytheism vs. monotheism .Polytheism is the belief that there are many distinct Gods. Monotheism is the belief there is one all powerful God. Polytheism denies the existence of an all powerful God, although there is often a chief God like Zeus to the ancient Greeks or Vishnu in the Hindu pantheon. These Gods are the most powerful but are not all powerful. So which one is more likely?

Based on the recent discoveries, there can only be one God. Polytheistic religions have Gods that are very powerful but are inadequate nonetheless. All of the characteristics that we attributed to God (all powerful, creative, all knowing, eternal, prime mover) are inseparable. This is because it's impossible for anything to self exist unless it's eternal. The creator existed before anything else, therefore it is eternal. Also the thing which creates all other things, is by definition, all powerful. So those three traits are inseparable. As far as being all knowing goes, we already know that the creator is the designer, and so must have intimate knowledge of all things. Therefore God must be one.

There are a great many polytheistic religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, animistic religions, tribal religions etc. You may have notice that most of them are pantheistic also. That takes care most of the religions and world views that exist. Not taken be spoken arrogantly, but reasonably based upon what has been shown so far. We could go on, but the categories would get quite complex.It suffices to say that any religion which denies what is known about God or our universe must be false.

Here's an idea. Here's a list of all of the known religions and a reference giving description of all of them.

List of world's religions:

Major philosophical systems (referred to as not religious or non spiritual belief systems)

Naturalism
materialism
marxism/ dialectic materialism
atheism
humanism/secular humanism
cosmic humanism (aka. new age spirituality)
evolutionary theory / darwinian and neo- darwinian

"World" Religions

Baha'i faith
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Shinto
sikhism
Taoism

Neo-Pagan religious faiths

Asatru ( Norse paganism)
Druidism
Goddess worship
Wicca
Witchcraft

Small non-christian religions

caodaism
Druidism
Druse
Eckankar
Gnosticism (also, Christian Gnosticism)
(gypsies) rom, roma, romani, Rroma
Hare krishna - iskon
lukumi
macumba
mowahhidoon
native spirituality
new age spirituality
osho (followers of rajneesh)
santeria
satanism
scientology
thelema
unitarian-universalism
vodon (voodoo)
zoroastrianism

Other ethical groups and spiritual paths

Agnosticism
unitarian-universalism
teachings of dadaji

Sects, denominations, and cults not listed

Most of this was obtained from Ontario consultants on religious tolerance (OCRT).

This is a good time to discuss agnosticism. You may have heard of it before. Agnosticism is a claim to ignorance. It is the belief that it is impossible to know if God exists let alone any details about his personality. Some people simply use the term to mean "I don't know but maybe someday I'll find out". For the purposes of this article, agnosticism will be divided this way:

Agnosticism type A - It is impossible to know if God exists.
Agnosticism type B - it is impossible to know any details about God (it is impossible to know any details about God beside his omnipotence, omniscience and eternal nature.These are the qualities that define God with a capital G.)

But since we have already determined that God does exist, agnosticism type A can be ruled out. Leaving us with one question..

Are any of the remaining religions correct? Or must we admit ignorance at this point? Logically, one thing can be said. Agnosticism B can be proven false, if any of the remaining religions can be proven true. The first question to ask is, what religions are left? You can probably think of at least one. They will all be supernatural and monotheistic. They are:

1. Judaism
2. Islam
3. Christianity

Perhaps this is a good time for you to reflect on what's been discovered so far. We are left with four possibilities. Either God is unknowable, or He is as Judaism describes Him, or He is as Islam decibels Him, or He is as Christianity describes Him.

First, let's take a look at each one in chronological order. A library or the internet used with discernment is a good way to study about religions btw.

Judaism, though not in it's modern form, has been around the longest. According to Judaism's historical books written by men including a man named Moses and a few prophets, God created the universe and all the things in it including people. Then the first two people turned away from God by committing the first sin. This event is called the fall . They fell from perfection and Good to imperfection and bad. At this point death and decay entered the world. But God promised he would one day send a messiah. This messiah would allow people to escape judgment and spiritual death. According to Judaism mankind is made of body and spirit. When the body dies, the spirit is left. It goes to either hell or heaven (paradise).The remainder of the historical accounts of Judaism is very interesting and is well worth reading. But for the purpose of this article, we already have what's needed to know.

Although there is a long history of how God interacted with the Jewish people, the messiah has never come according to modern orthadox Judaism, and they are waiting for him still, almost 3,500 years later. This brings us to the next religion chronologically.

Christianity is another supernatural monotheistic religion. And it just so happens to be dependant upon Judaism. Christians believe that the messiah has already come. His name was Jesus, or more accurately in greek Iesous (ee-ay-sooce) or in Hebrew, Jehoshua. meaning God-saved. There's a difference between the two religions however. Modern Judaism means to claim the messiah only for themselves. Christianity claims the messiah came for everyone! According to Christianity, Jesus did conquer death just as God had promised he would. He did this in a way no one expected him to; he died and came back to life. And in doing this he took upon himself the penalties for all crimes ever committed against God by mankind. But another interesting part is that each person has to be included in this process of redemption, or else pay the penalties for their crimes all by themselves. So Christianity claims to complete the story that Judaism began by means of a messiah.

In 600 ad. a man named Muhammed came along, and just like Christianity he had a few adjustments to make in the previous monotheistic religions. In the city of mecca, he purportedly began receiving messages from God, who he called Allah in 610 ad. They came to him in small pieces over the next 22 years during which he moved to Medina with his followers. He had some trouble getting things started, but soon the religion grew to be very large. The beliefs of Islam center around the collection of writings given to Mohammed. They call it the quran or Koran which means "the recitation". And many muslims do recite it regularly. But one thing that makes Islam different is that Mohammed's revelation takes a very different perspective but is loosely analogous to the previous two religions. According to the Koran, Allah created all things in six days. First Allah created other beings. Then he formed man from clay, a sperm drop and a clot of blood. Then God gave man mental capabilities and breathed into him some of his special attributes. Then Allah told the other beings to submit to man. But the other beings refused and from that point on were determined to destroy mankind. This is the one we call Satan. According to the koran, a messiah was never promised or needed. Because there was never a fall from perfection. Perfection includes pain and suffering, but in the future it will end. Things were created as they still are. Pain and suffering were created by Allah for the purpose of spiritual purification. That includes all pain and suffering in this life and the next. Since the beginning, Allah sent prophets to guide mankind away from evil behavior so they wouldn't have to go to hell for a very long time after they die. These were the same prophets who wrote the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. But the koran reports that these scriptures have tremendous errors in them. This is why the Torah and Koran do not agree on most issues.

In fact, it is the very intent of the Koran to correct these errors. It's not a bad idea to study it yourself with discernment. There, all three described in simple terms. You might have thought that comparing the validity of these three would be time consuming and difficult, or that it would be too hard to answer all of the questions that need to be answered. But there is a simpler way.

There is one question whose answer can distinguish between these religions efficiently. Since logic is best kept simple and efficient as possible, this is the best question we can ask. This is a question of tremendous importance. Here's why. First, Christianity insists that Jesus Christ is the messiah, that is the very son of God; God in the flesh. Second, Islam insist that Jesus is the prophet of Allah, no more no less. Third, modern Judaism claims that he was just a man: crazy, eccentric, or maybe just unlucky, but just a man nonetheless.

He must have been one of these three things. Now to find out the answer. If he was just a man, we should find that no special, supernatural or divine events ever occurred near, by or through him. And if he was a prophet of Allah, then we should find that there were some supernatural events surrounding him, like the performing of miracles or the fulfillment of his prophecy. And if he was the messiah, the son of God, the most important person to ever walk the earth then we'd expect there to be quite a bit of evidence to verify that this is true. Or it would be easy to prove otherwise. Naturally, if you want to know if someone is the messiah you must look to the source of the concept. The Pentateuch and the subsequent writings of the Hebrew Prophets can also be found in the first half of the Christian Bible. You may need a copy of one or the other to follow along. You can also find a bible study in many versions online, one of them is at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions and 35 languages. (http://www.biblegateway.com) . We need to see if Jesus fits the descriptions. Not just some of them, but ALL of them must be met. In addition, the fulfillment of these criteria should be unambiguous and reflect supernatural, unique and even divine verification. Otherwise, the scriptures themselves should be held to suspicion as Islam claims.

One of the first thing we can look into is the matter of timing. Do the Hebrew scriptures predict when the messiah should appear? Yes, in fact they do. In one of the most specific prophecies ever written, the prophet Daniel gives the exact date that the messiah should appear (Daniel 9:24-25). Unfortunately, the knowledge of historical calendars and dating systems required to translate that date is probably beyond most people. But others have translated the information for us.

483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 BC. = ad 30-33.

Daniel gives us a precise date that the messiah would come. While Daniel did refer to an exact date, historians do not have enough information to determine exactly what that date is. As a result, a three year range is given as a date. As the verses in Daniels book says,

"from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until messiah the Prince there will be 7 sevens and 62 sevens..." "...then after the 62 sevens the messiah will be cut off...."

Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.

There is an interesting piece of historical fact to support the veracity of his testimony. One of the most powerful and compelling of all fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, the Seventy Weeks of Daniel is one with which all Christians should be familiar. It is eye opening for Gentiles and Jews alike.

1. The book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century before Christ. Skeptics who deny authentic authorship by Daniel still have to admit that the book appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) by the second century before Christ. Even this later date makes this a valid and powerful prophecy.

2. Read Daniel 9:24-26. The following terms are crucial to understanding the prophecy: "Anointed one" is the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for (Messiah is Hebrew for Anointed One), "Cut off" always refers to killed in the O.T., and "Weeks", or "Sevens" (depending upon translation) is the Hebrew word Heptad. Heptad is used to mean either a period of seven days or a period of seven years (Comparable to our use of "Decade" for ten years). This passage is stating that 69 times seven years after the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem the Messiah would be killed for his people.

3. The Hebrew calendar consisted (and still consists) of 12 months of 30 days each, resulting in a 360 day year. The conversion from that calendar to ours is as follows:

a. 69 X 7 = 483 Hebrew years
b. 483 X 360 = 173,880 Days
c. 173,880 / 365 (Days in our calendar year) =476 Years in our calendar after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem the Messiah will be cut off.

4. In Nehemiah 2:1 we read that in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes the decree was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (vv 2-9). King Artaxerxes is a historical figure whose reign secular historians say began in 464 B.C. 20 years from that date would be around 445 B.C. when the decree is issued. Traveling forward in time 476 years brings one to 33 A.D. (Remember that there is no year 0. The year after 1 B.C. is 1 A.D.).

5. There is general agreement among historians, whatever their opinion of Jesus, that 33 A.D. is the year that he was crucified. That makes this an amazingly accurate, incredibly specific fulfilled prophecy. So 30-33 BC is the same time period that Jesus taught in Israel. At the end of this period of time, many Jews in Jerusalem hailed Jesus as the messiah on his entry into Jerusalem. By the end of that week, Jesus was executed. As the prophecy said, " after the 62 sevens the messiah will be cut off and have nothing". This is an amazing fulfillment of prophecy, which was made almost 500 years earlier. But let's not stop there. Let's look at all the prophecies. Following will be a nice list of prophecies that pertain to the messiah.
Messianic Prophecy Chart

1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)

â?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 2:1â??7, Galatians 4:4)

2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)

3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)

4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)

5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)

â?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32â??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)

6. Messiah to be crucified (Psalm 22, 69:21)
7. Messiah will be pierced (Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16)
8. Messiah will be killed (Isaiah 50:6, Daniel 9:26)

â?? Jesus was crucified, pierced, and executed (Matthew 27:34â??50, John 19:28â??30, John 19:34, 37, Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30)
â?? Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 when he was crucified "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

9. Messiah to be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)

(Note: The Hebrew word "almah" for 'virgin' has sometimes been translated simply as 'young woman'. 'Virgin' is a better translation because:

-Nowhere in the Scriptures is "almah" used of a non-virgin

-The author clearly intends the event to be a significant sign; a young woman having a baby would not be significant )

â?? Jesus was born of Mary who was, at that time, a virgin
(Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 1:26â??35). Mary later bore other children by her husband Joseph (Matthew 12:46â??50).

10. Messiah will be gentle, mild and meek (Isaiah 42:2â??3, 53:7)

â?? Jesus did not come to fight or incite the people to war. He never raised His hand against another except to drive the money changers from the temple (Matthew 12:15â??20, 26:62â??63, 27:11â??14)

11. Messiah will not exclude the Gentiles in his mission (Isaiah 42:1, 49:1â??8)

â?? Jesus accepted the repentance of many Gentiles and preached that gentiles will be included in God's plan for the salvation (Matthew 12:21)

12. The message the Messiah will bring (as written in Isaiah) matches the message Jesus brought (Isaiah 52:13 â?? 53:12)

â?? All four Gospels (The Messiah brings Salvation through his suffering)

13. The Messiah will perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5â??6)

â?? The Gospels are full of Jesus' miracles; here are a couple of passages which summarize this (John 11:47, Matthew 11:3â??6)

14. Messiah to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

â?? Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4â??6)

15. Messiah will enter the temple with authority as the messenger of God (Malachi 3:1)

â?? Jesus taught in the temple and synagogues as one having authority, not as one who simply reads the scriptures and preaches from them (Luke 4:15â??21, Matthew 21:12, 7:28â??29)

16. Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)

â?? Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1â??10)

17. Messiah will be forsaken by his disciples (Zechariah 13:7)

â?? Jesus' disciples all deserted him at the time of his arrest and crucifixion (Matthew 26:31, 56, 75)

18. They would cast lots for his clothing rather than divide it among them (Psalm 22:18)

â?? The clothes of the one to be executed became spoil to the executioners (Matthew 27:35, John 19:24)

19. Although he was to die as a criminal his grave would be that of a rich man (Isaiah 53:9)

â?? Jesus was buried in the tomb that a rich man had purchased for the time of his own death; instead, he donated it to Jesus (Matthew 27:57â??60)

20. The Messiah would be bought with 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)

â?? Judas Iscariot was paid this amount to betray Jesus, that is, to find a time when He was alone and not protected by multitudes of followers so that He could be seized easily (Matthew 26:15)

21. Messiah to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)

â?? Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot betrayed Jesus (John 13:18â??30; 18:1â??9)

22. Messiah to be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7, Proverbs 30:4)

â?? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and was later announced to be God's son at the time of His baptism (Luke 1:32, Matthew 3:17)

23. Messiah to be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10)

â?? Matthew 28:1â??20, Acts 13:35â??37

24. Messiah will ascend into heaven (Psalm 68:18, [Ephesians 4:8])

â?? Luke 24:51, Acts 1:6â??11

25. Messiah will be both God and Man (Jeremiah 23:5â??6).

In these verses, the Messiah is described as both descended from King David and as YHWH ( Jehovah ), sometimes translated 'The LORD'. YHWH was the Hebrew name for God which was regarded as too sacred to pronounce. I regard it sacred too, but for educational purposes I'm pointing it out.

â?? (l John 1:1â??14)

There you go. You may have noticed that all of the fulfillments from that list are from the New Testament. Is this a valid source of dependable historical information? Most of these reference come from four books collectively called "the Gospels" . Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are all accounts of Jesus' life. And if you were to look into how they were written and in what environment you would find that they are even more dependable and valid than anything else we know about history.

Jesus was a public figure. Among the Jewish people in Israel at that time, there probably wasn't a single person who had not heard of Jesus. And a great many of them had actually heard his teaching in person, not to mention the many incredible miracles he performed which were not denied even by the pharisees who were against him.

The 4 accounts of Jesus' life that we have today were written by four distinguished gentlemen named Mathew Levi, John Mark, Dr. Luke and John the son of Zebedee (who was very young at the time). If they had lied about the facts or made any changes in their accounts, everyone would have known about it. There were just too many eyewitnesses to who Jesus really was.

And even more, the book that Dr. Luke wrote is an extremely well researched piece of historical workmanship. He interviewed 100s of eyewitnesses and spent time putting all of their accounts together. So we can know with a high degree of certainty that the gospels are dependable and accurate. Which means that Jesus fulfilled the requirements for messiah perfectly. All that's needed now is divine verification. That is, evidence that he was more than just a prophet. This isn't that hard, since hundreds and hundreds of people saw Jesus after he was crucified. Not surprisingly, these people were the first Christians since they had seen with their own eyes Jesus risen from the dead. Also, even before Jesus was raised from the dead, he raised another man from the dead also (John 11), and many more people were there to verify that miracle also.

Unfortunately for Islam, the Koran says that noone can ever come back from the dead. And since we have very strong evidence that indeed took place, the koran is in error at this point. Not to mention the things we've already gone over, like the fact that the messiah which was foretold to come actually came right on time. Yet the Koran says that there is no messiah and we never needed one. That's two big errors.

And third, the Koran claims that the gospels are also holy scriptures from Allah! This is hard to believe, since the main topic of all 4 gospels is Jesus Christ the messiah, the one and only son of God. Yet the Koran not only denies that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but even that he died on a tree.

It's hard to imagine a slip of the pen leading to such a cohesive doctrine. In fact, as has been shown, the entire bible ( Pentateuch, the prophets, and new testament) has Jesus the messiah as it's central theme throughout.. Isn't it suspicious that a book that took 2,000 years to write by 40+ different people from different times and cultures could be so central in it's theme? And no book has been challenged as much as the bible since it's completion.

It turns out a similar method as shown above is the best way to rule out cults and sects as well that claim to be an extension of Christianity via some subsequent revelation from God. Any belief which claims Jesus as one of their "holy men" yet contradicts who he was or what he said is in error and should be held with suspicion.

From what's been discovered so far, it's apparent that modern Judaism started out with the right idea, but took a wrong turn. That leaves agnosticism type B incorrect because Christianity is proven correct. Christianity not only fits with what we know about God, but it is abundantly proved by historical, prophetic, and miraculous events. And it is completely unique in this respect. No other religion is verified in such a powerful way.

Few things are as well documented as Jesus' life and deeds. And no other religion has such an amazing 100% accuracy rate for it's prophecies.. Now that we know that the bible can be trusted, we can look at what it reveals about the meaning of life. The bible is exactly what it claims to be, a message from God to mankind. It explains where we came from, why we're here and where we're going. So what does it say about why we're here? What is the meaning of life? It should be obvious by now.

The meaning of life = GOD

Jesus said in John 14:6, " I am the way, the truth, and the life, and noone comes to the Father but by me". The bible is clear on several important issues. Everyone is born with a sinful, selfish nature, as descendants from Adam the first man. All sin and evil are crimes committed against God himself. God demands justice, and he will not allow evil in his presence. But God has made a way for justice to be met, our crimes to be accounted for, and for our redemption.

This redemption is made through Christ Jesus, who being sinless and both God and man, is able to take the punishment upon himself, and offer himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Not only this but he was raised up from death as a new creature. Those who wish to be saved must turn away from sin and acknowledge God's righteousness, forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ, and then they will be received as children of God, receiving his grace and transformed with Christ Jesus from death to life and perfection, just as he was risen from death to glorification.

That's why I typed all this, to convince you to become a Christian. I made it plain and obvious from the beginning, and I hope I convinced you. If not, I invite you argue with me or talk about it, or even read and study on your own. I hope that you got the message, and hope the best for you. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

WOW the mods have to give you a prize for the longest post
if they dont I will.

[Pass That Shit]

Is it a fossil of a mermaid?

Possibly a seal or sea lion?

Seriously though, How does having a fossil prove that it evolved in any way? Science is just like religion, you have to beleive it to be true, it's not that there's scientific proof that we are a product of evolution. It always comes down to faith in God or faith in science. I started a thread about this very subject. People put faith in science just like people put faith in God. It always comes down to faith, not logic.

[Pass That Shit]

WOW the mods have to give you a prize for the longest post
if they dont I will.

JD, do you really think anyone missed that post that you had to re-post it? LOL :jointsmile:

[imitator]

If I could give you more rep, I would give you a red dot for that. Seriously, dont quote large ass posts like that, please.

[imitator]

Is it a fossil of a mermaid?

Possibly a seal or sea lion?

Seriously though, How does having a fossil prove that it evolved in any way? Science is just like religion, you have to beleive it to be true, it's not that there's scientific proof that we are a product of evolution. It always comes down to faith in God or faith in science. I started a thread about this very subject. People put faith in science just like people put faith in God. It always comes down to faith, not logic.

None of those types of things existed at that point in time, according to the fossil record.

Idk, I think its pretty telling all in all, you have a creature that has parts of it meant for life as a fish, as well as the beginnings of what is required to live on land. No other types of creatures have been found that are like this one, and it is believed to be from the period of time that just happens to be the gap between the all underwater creature period, and first landwalkers period.

Im not saying that it is definite proof, but its very convincing when looked at under the light of evolution.

And yes, in the end, for alot of things, it is faith. But the key thing about science is, the things it deals with can be tested in a varifiable way. Its not about some unknown unknown, and nothing is accepted as "fact" or more precisely, theory, unless it can pass a large measure of scrutiny that most other things faith based cant even begin to fathom passing.

Now we could argue that the methods used for testing, and the very theories and equations we use for the testing are faulty, and therefore what we find is faulty, but at that point in time, you would be calling into question everything in existance, and I think you would find a staunch opponent in natureisawesome then.

[natureisawesome]

I'll answer all this stuff later.. tired

[Staurm]

WOW- - - i n f o r m a t i o n o v e r l o a d

DANGER Will Robinson....

I can't keep up with you natureisawesome, I don't have time to read you replies/posts. Ask a simple question, get an answer the size of a thesis.

Could you perhaps condense this thread into a scientific text and next time I'm in Waterstones I'll pick up a copy and then I can read in on the train on the way to work?

You seem keen to dismiss Prigonine's theories very quickly, I find that surprising since you seem to know a thing or two about a thing or two. I feel out of my depth. I am somewhat sceptical about your bible babble though. I hope I can get round to replying to your comments. Order and disorder are confusing and somewhat subjective concepts when it comes to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It's perhaps better to think of it in terms of equilibrium, non-equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium.

It's over ten years since I studied statmech and it took me some time back then to get my head round it, i've largely forgotten a lot of the microcanonical models and all that. But I am sure I still comprehend the concept of entropy, I looked up wikipedia and it seemed to agree with you on wether a closed system moves towards a state of disorder. So far as I see, a closed system, say a gas, will eventually even out into a state of equilibrium whereopon the molecules will represent a perfect Gaussian spread in term of the kinetic energy they possess. That to me seems the most ordered state a gas can be in?

Anyway, its good to have someone question theories which I have more or less accepted as valid, I hope I can convince both of us that Progigone's dissipative structures hold water.

Tot laters...

[imitator]

1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)

â?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 2:1â??7, Galatians 4:4)

2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)

3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)
4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)

5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)

â?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32â??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)


Every other person that he is supposed to have descended from, according to the bible, they state that he is to descend from said person. But not with Jacob.

Why the difference when it came to Jacob?

[imitator]

Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.

They were written after the fact.

You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.

Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.

Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?

[imitator]

Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.


So wait, it sometimes is translated into weeks, but just for this excercise we know that he meant seven years? How do we know, excluding the fact that it fits your excercise here, that he didnt mean weeks? Especially if what he said could be interpretted as weeks?


For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.

You took a shred of truth there, and spread it into something entirely different.

Buddhism says that its foolish to look at things as having a definite start, and a definite end. Such things are human creations to help deal with the first Noble Truth, Pain. Doing so, will only cause more pain, and will prevent you from ever reaching nirvana.

Secondly, what Buddhism says makes perfect sense, because alot of what they speak of works on the scientific level.

As is well known, you can not create or destroy matter. Therefore, everything that is your body and is you, existed before you were "born" and will continue to exist after you "die". That is the entire concept. Also, the concept of the everchanging.

You are not the same as you were half a second ago, and the same will be true a half a second from now. The you from then, and the you from now, are not the same being. There are differences, things that seperate the two, and make them different. How can the same thing, be different from another of the same thing? It cant, therefore, you are not the same being you were half a second ago.

Everything in life is waiting for the proper conditions to support its current manifestation. It doesnt completely poof out of no where, pretty much everything needed for it to manifest is there, its waiting for proper conditions.

I can go into more detail if you wish, but I thought I would correct that blatant attack against another religion, and blatantly incorrect statement. Everything Buddhism states about "death" and "birth" makes sense on a scientific level, and not even a complex level either.

[imitator]

3. All events require that something caused them.

What caused the creation of God? If all events require that something caused them, then what caused the initial existance and creation of God?

If God can "just exist" and "just is", then doesnt that explicitly discredit that third rule? The key word for making it so its a problem, is of course "all", which implies everything, no exceptions.


Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not.

So wait, you state right here with this statement that some things we dont know, but that it doesnt mean that the answers dont exist, or that what we dont know doesnt exist? Isnt that what I was saying in regards to the Dreamer theory? That we dont know, but that doesnt mean its not true? And what did you say to argue against that? Odd...


Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove.

Exactly. Thats the beauty of it, in so many ways.

And throughout the time you mention the option of this, you seem to immediately discredit it just from a dislike of your own. You claim its unrealistic, but in that case, what is realistic? Do you have definitive proof of what is realistic? Or just an assumption that you choose to believe in because its easier then the alternatives?


1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.

Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.

Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.

Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.

The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.

Jumping back again to this, and I apologize for the jumping.

If God exists while being exempt from the third rule, then we can assume that the third rule doesnt apply to everything, which means in essence it could apply to nothing. Not that it is applying to nothing, but that its possible if it doesnt apply to everything, that it could apply to nothing.

If that is the case, that God is exempt from the third rule, then is it not possible the universe is exempt from that rule as well? The universe could be a perpetual motion machine, since the third rule doesnt apply to everything. It could span on for infinity in all possible ways, never ending, never beginning. Again, I am not stating that this is the truth or the case, just saying that if the third rule doesnt apply to everything, then its a possibility, no matter how far fetched it might sound.

[imitator]

As is well known, you can not create or destroy matter. Therefore, everything that is your body and is you, existed before you were "born" and will continue to exist after you "die". That is the entire concept. Also, the concept of the everchanging.



The bolded part should read believed. Slip of the fingers when typing that up. Meant believed, not known.

[Myself]

If this is a book, it's all wrong (sorry if this is your own post that you wrote)

First let me start off by re-introducing the first Law of thermodynamics.


Energy can not be created or destroyed


That means energy has always been here, and always will be. The energy just didn't pop out of nowhere and is now here. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, and will always be seeing as you can not destroy it. Therefor, the universe can not end, nor can it be destroyed.
Our universe is nothing but pure energy, down to every single atom and quark.

[natureisawesome]

imitator:


There are places who are unbiased. There are unbiased reports done through many places. I find alot of interesting things from University based studies. Even if something isnt entirely unbiased, you can find things that arent as biased as others. A website that is entirely pro-creationism/evolutionism is the most biased thing you can find when you are searching for information on those two subjects. You cant get more biased then that.

I will tell you right now, that I expected that exact arguement from you. Its the typical one. Please, show me examples of where well thought out, formulated essays and theories founded upon the theory of creationism werent given the same exposure as similarly well formulated essays and theories on evolution.

I have yet to see a scientific journal of any kind not publish a well written, and varifiable essay/thesis, no matter what the subject. The key is, is the science there, and is it provable? If it isnt, no matter what the subject is, it wont get in. And you are rooting for a theory that is largely unprovable(God existing, creating the earth). There are some very very big blaring holes in the theory, which doesnt mean its not correct, but certainly means it is not provable by any means currently.

But just to clarify, you are stating that there is a concerted effort by a large group of people, to try to hinder or prevent the publication and exposure of the theory of creationism? That people are purposely, for no other reason then the subject of the thesis/esasy, rejecting the work of creationist scientists, who are putting out work that is just as good, if not better then the work they publish instead?

Its not unconceivable, but highly unlikely, considering there are plenty of articles in US based scientific publications that were pro-pot, and thats not the general concensus in regards to this country, and the government. Ive seen plenty of unpopular, or highly criticized articles published, because they were so well written, and were high quality thesis'. So this would, literally, be a first for me to see that there is a concerted effort by some large body of people, to purposely hinder and prevent the publication of creationistic theories and thesis papers.

I don't agree that there are totally unbiased journals or media.

There are testimonies of creation scientists who have been unrightfully (and probably unlawfully ) discriminated against that you can find by searching on the internet.

Everyone is biased and when you understand that, you realize it's a matter of finding the right bias rather than no bias. Even when we anylize information, we used a biased mind to do that. People have to decide for themselves ultimatley for themselves whether what someone shares is right or wrong. I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process.