NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, girls and guys, just for fun and serious discussion, I hope, I am posting this from the Baha'i Faith. It is from Abdu'l Baha the son of the Prophet Founder of the Baha'i Faith. Tell me what you think. Agree or disagree? I am not a scientist so I really can't resond from that angle. And I have to leave for a couple three hours around 9 am central us time.

PROOFS AND EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create.

Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.

The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.

For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world. Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.

It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions -- that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential.

In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved.

Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation.

Throughout the world of existence it is the same; the smallest created thing proves that there is a creator. For instance, this piece of bread proves that it has a maker.

Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!

These obvious arguments are adduced for weak souls; but if the inner perception be open, a hundred thousand clear proofs become visible. Thus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the bounty of the spirit, it is necessary to establish external arguments.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 4)

Are you revisiting Descartes' ontological fallacy?

Are you revisiting Descartes' ontological fallacy?

Beats me!

Beats me!
Sure sounds like it to me.

I find this completely unconvincing. It claims that a god is needed to create man because man didn't create himself. There's too much proof, however, that man is the product of evolution to believe that he was designed by a god. (unless that god worked through evolution, but that just leaves you in an agnostic position)

Just because the world is imperfect doesn't imply that a perfect being must exist. Maybe it's imperfections all the way down. I don't see the logic in deciding that since imperfect conditions exist a perfect being therefore must exist.

Also I'm unconvinced that the existence of natural laws that govern the universe imply that there is a being who governs. It may just be rigid natural laws which exist by themselves.

Sure sounds like it to me.

If that's good for you. It's good for me. Does that mean there are huge holes in the statement?

<Heavy snipping> Man did not create himself.
If you want to examine what brought about man, you can do it in two ways.

One would be to look at the evidence available. For example, if I were to examine the origin of a loaf of bread, I could either examine the concept, or the actual object. If I examine the object, I'll quickly arrive at the conclusion that a human made it. If I examine the concept, however, I'll be unable to reach a clear conclusion, since there's a limit to how far back I can trace it's history.
I can, however, conclude that it's likely a manmade concept, as we're the ones benefitting from it & continually refining the concept.

If you look at humanity like this, how can you defend dragging a god into it? Is there any evidence that some sort of sentience is refining manking, benefitting from it or in any way involved in the process that brought about mankind?

Edit: The short question is, how can you possibly reach the conclusion that someone created man, just because 'man' didn't?

If that's good for you. It's good for me. Does that mean there are huge holes in the statement?
Big enough to drive a truck through.

St. Anselm and Descartes had ontological proofs. Kant has a good piece on dissecting them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Are you revisiting Descartes' ontological fallacy?

He certainly is! The same argument can be extended to prove the existence of the perfect banana although I'm dubious that this perfect banana exists - they all seem to be too stringy or not ripe enough or not quite even enough in just the right shade of yellow. Hmmm, I'm not sure the ontological argument works you know...

If that's good for you. It's good for me. Does that mean there are huge holes in the statement?
Massive ones. It begins with an unproven premise (that there is a "creator" at all) and goes on to a non-sequitor (that the creator has to be perfect). Having founded this supposedly logical argument on logical fallacies, it then just gets worse!

An even better explanation here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

I find this completely unconvincing. It claims that a god is needed to create man because man didn't create himself. There's too much proof, however, that man is the product of evolution to believe that he was designed by a god. (unless that god worked through evolution, but that just leaves you in an agnostic position)

Just because the world is imperfect doesn't imply that a perfect being must exist. Maybe it's imperfections all the way down. I don't see the logic in deciding that since imperfect conditions exist a perfect being therefore must exist.

Also I'm unconvinced that the existence of natural laws that govern the universe imply that there is a being who governs. It may just be rigid natural laws which exist by themselves.

I don't believe that the statement says that evolution does not or has not happened. In fact, Abdul Baha makes an agreeable statement about evolution.

I am not sure how to answer your response to the imperfection/perfection piece. Natural laws are rigid; they can't be broken or changed except through the intervention of humans i.e. flight over gravity.

I have not always believed in religion or God. I finally just couldn't find an answer that felt right in my heart that it was all left to chance. Einstein, himself believed in God.

He certainly is! The same argument can be extended to prove the existence of the perfect banana although I'm dubious that this perfect banana exists - they all seem to be too stringy or not ripe enough or not quite even enough in just the right shade of yellow. Hmmm, I'm not sure the ontological argument works you know...

The same Wiki page quoted by Deep Kimchi explains the illogicity of that particular argument.

Gaunilo's island

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo. Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, Gaunilo claims that it is no more so than Anselm's.

Such objections are known as "Overload Objections"; they don't claim to show where or how the ontological argument goes wrong, they simply argue that if it is sound, then so are many other arguments of the same logical form which we don't want to accept, arguments which would overload the world with an indefinitely large number of things like perfect islands, perfect pizzas, perfect pencils, etc.

Such objections always depend upon the accuracy of the analogy. That is, we must be able to show that the objector's argument is sufficiently like the ontological argument for us to be able to conclude that if one works so must the other. There are at least two problems with Gaunilo's version, though. First, what exactly is the concept of the perfect island — the island than which no greater can be conceived? In any group of people, there will be disagreements as to what makes an island perfect; there will be different preferences concerning size, climate, inhabitants, food-availability, etc. There is no single concept of a perfect island, because perfection here can only mean what is perfect for us, rather than perfect in itself. The notion of the perfect being, however, isn't relativised to any individual; it's the notion of a being that is maximally great — not for me or for you, but great, full stop.

It might be objected that 'perfection' is also a culturally relative notion, so that Anselm's argument faces exactly the same problem as Gaunilo's. As we have seen, however, Anselm and Descartes use 'perfection' not (primarily) evaluatively, but to refer to god's having complete or total properties. Moreover, it isn't necessary to say what the properties are in order for the argument to go through; we only need to consider the concept of a being that has all perfections (whatever they may be).

Gaunilo might respond that he means to refer to an island that is perfect in itself, without reference to us. Now, what is an island? It's a body of land surrounded by water. But every island is a body of land surrounded by water (if it weren't, it wouldn't be an island); so every island is a perfect island (every island is perfectly an island). Here, the disanalogy arises because whatever example Gaunilo chooses, it will be a being of a particular type – such a pizza, a pencil, or a Prime Minister – and so its perfection will be relative to that type. In the case of Anselm's premise, though, we're not concerned with a being of this type or that type, but just with a being — a being than which no greater can be conceived.

Thus Gaunilo's objection fails to touch Anselm's argument (or the variant arguments of later writers such as Descartes).

If you want to examine what brought about man, you can do it in two ways.

One would be to look at the evidence available. For example, if I were to examine the origin of a loaf of bread, I could either examine the concept, or the actual object. If I examine the object, I'll quickly arrive at the conclusion that a human made it. If I examine the concept, however, I'll be unable to reach a clear conclusion, since there's a limit to how far back I can trace it's history.
I can, however, conclude that it's likely a manmade concept, as we're the ones benefitting from it & continually refining the concept.

[QUOTE]If you look at humanity like this, how can you defend dragging a god into it? Is there any evidence that some sort of sentience is refining manking, benefitting from it or in any way involved in the process that brought about mankind?

Well, the answer to this would be yes the refining is being done by those who claim to be Messengers of God--Moses, Christ, Muhammad, today Baha'u'llah, to name a few. Their whole purpose was and is to refine humanity.

I don't believe that the statement says that evolution does not or has not happened. In fact, Abdul Baha makes an agreeable statement about evolution.

I am not sure how to answer your response to the imperfection/perfection piece. Natural laws are rigid; they can't be broken or changed except through the intervention of humans i.e. flight over gravity.

I have not always believed in religion or God. I finally just couldn't find an answer that felt right in my heart that it was all left to chance. Einstein, himself believed in God.
I don't think you should make such claims on Einstein's behalf. I think at most you can probably say that he was an agnostic atheist, in that he didn't believe in any kind of personified god. And even that's a scetchy claim.

More interesting though: what kind of question were you looking for an answer to?

Well, the answer to this would be yes the refining is being done by those who claim to be Messengers of God--Moses, Christ, Muhammad, today Baha'u'llah, to name a few. Their whole purpose was and is to refine humanity.
Oh.. So the original argument you presented should've instead said: "I think therefore God is"?

I don't believe that the statement says that evolution does not or has not happened. In fact, Abdul Baha makes an agreeable statement about evolution.

I am not sure how to answer your response to the imperfection/perfection piece. Natural laws are rigid; they can't be broken or changed except through the intervention of humans i.e. flight over gravity.

I have not always believed in religion or God. I finally just couldn't find an answer that felt right in my heart that it was all left to chance. Einstein, himself believed in God.
But flight doesn't defy natural laws, it uses them. It uses the physics to create a low pressure area over the wing that lifts the plane. Gravity is still pulling on the plane, the law isn't broken, just a stronger force wins out.

Einstein's belief or disbelief in god isn't an issue. Newton believed in Alchemy (as well as Christianity). Does that mean that physicists should be trying to turn lead into gold?

You know, proof of God is easy to obtain. Stand up and swing your leg. Now sit back down. You have just initiated several million chemical reactions, anyone of which went smoothly. If just one of those reactions say, used more energy than usual, your kneecap could have been blown off.(thats not stretching the imagination. look at the chemicals used in your body, then look at homemade bomb ingredients lists.) Further, we have no proof of evolution either. Can you show me evidence of our evolutionary past? No, you can't. It's been proved that we did not come from the neaderthals'.

Einstein, himself believed in God.

And while Einstein was undoubtably a genius his belief in God does not make it fact!

I find it bizarre that you cannot believe that it is chance and yet you may, if convinced, believe in a creator who we have absolutely no proof in.

The same Wiki page quoted by Deep Kimchi explains the illogicity of that particular argument.

Those are particularly weak objections though, not sure they convince me at all. In the mean time, if you'll excuse me, I have a perfect banana to be searching for.

*munches banana*

Pheh! Bruised!

But flight doesn't defy natural laws, it uses them. It uses the physics to create a low pressure area over the wing that lifts the plane. Gravity is still pulling on the plane, the law isn't broken, just a stronger force wins out.

Einstein's belief or disbelief in god isn't an issue. Newton believed in Alchemy (as well as Christianity). Does that mean that physicists should be trying to turn lead into gold?

True, flight does use a higher, if you will, law to overcome gravity that is clear and evident. Before the human mind intervened flight for humans was impossible. The learned, in part at least, how to do this by studing nature. And you can turn lower elements into gold. That has been done. I believe that it cost more than mining the real stuff. And now they can make diamonds from some lower substance.

If left alone material done not on their own develop into something that can act on its own. That requires intervention.

And while Einstein was undoubtably a genius his belief in God does not make it fact!

I find it bizarre that you cannot believe that it is chance and yet you may, if convinced, believe in a creator who we have absolutely no proof in.

That's ok. You look for proof in the beakers of science and don't find it. I look for proof in my heart and find proof in every object.

Disagree completely. Man was not "created, he evolved. Get used to it. There is no god, there is no devil, there is no heaven and there is no hell. Everything that man does, he does himself, god or bad. No one else to blame but himself.

Have a nice day

the grokdoc

If left alone material done not on their own develop into something that can act on its own. That requires intervention.

False. Watchmaker fallacy.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

<snip>
If left alone material done not on their own develop into something that can act on its own. That requires intervention.
How do you know this? Experiments have been done that suggest, not prove, but suggest that conditions on earth at the time life first emerged may have been capable of producing primitive cell-like structures. The amino acid building blocks of protein (and life) may be present on comets. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020330/fob1.asp

The honest answer to the question "Did life form by natural or supernatural means?" is I don't know.

Gotta go for now. Thanks for all of the respectful replies. I will get back to it later today if I can.

All of these issues and more have been resolved by the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has even shown us how the decline in the number of pirates is responsible for global warming.

http://www.venganza.org/

All of these issues and more have been resolved by the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has even shown us how the decline in the number of pirates is responsible for global warming.

http://www.venganza.org/
Wait! Have you noticed the correlation between the rise in gang violence and the decline of spirograph? Think about it.

Wait! Have you noticed the correlation between the rise in gang violence and the decline of spirograph? Think about it.
Decline?!

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being.

actually, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...

further evidence that the idea of a monolithic god is really a stand-in for a powerful father figure, if you ask me.

For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined.

except that the comparison clearly runs first to weaker and stronger humans, and then weaker and stronger examples from other animals, and weaker and stronger inorganic things. no 'perfection' to compare against needed.

Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world.

i've heard the all-powerful and all-knowing thing before. but i don't think i've ever seen god the all-wealthy.

All of these issues and more have been resolved by the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has even shown us how the decline in the number of pirates is responsible for global warming.


You jack-ass. You realize that making light of the "intelligent design" design debate in schools is going to cripple any real political moves you attempt make? Especially with something as absurd as a flying spaghetti monster. Just...stop it...for your own best interests.

That's ok. You look for proof in the beakers of science and don't find it. I look for proof in my heart and find proof in every object.

ummm... I've found no proof of Gods existence through science. I've also found no proof of Gods lack of existence. I'm content with the fact that I'm simply a process of evolution. If there was a creator we are nothing special. Merely part of a process started many moons ago.

Your heart is merely an organ. You'll find no proof of God there. In fact it's dangerous to go looking for proof where it can't possibly be found. That's the road to madness, not reason.

In the mean time, if you'll excuse me, I have a perfect banana to be searching for.

clearly a banana containing all perfections cannot be the product of something with fewer perfections than itself. therefore it must grow on the perfect banana tree. which, in turn, obviously cannot spring from imperfect ground, and therefore must grow on the perfect island. so, to find the perfect banana, you must travel to the perfect island.

that should be easy enough.

making light of the "intelligent design" design debate

i liked the IDers better when they were cdesign proponentsists

Ok, girls and guys, just for fun and serious discussion, I hope, I am posting this from the Baha'i Faith. It is from Abdu'l Baha the son of the Prophet Founder of the Baha'i Faith. Tell me what you think. Agree or disagree? I am not a scientist so I really can't resond from that angle. And I have to leave for a couple three hours around 9 am central us time.

PROOFS AND EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF GODOkay, I'll listen...

One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.Fair enough, I suppose...

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create.Okay, now where does this maker come from? You're trying to prove God's existence, and all of a sudden, here he is, all powerful! YAY! Okay, whatever, keep going...

Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself.People say Da Vinci's Mona Lisa was a female depiction of himself... It is LIKE him, but it didn't create itself. That statement is 100 % false. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.We are by no means, perfect...

The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.Because we are imperfect, and your false statement above, that God is imperfect, that proves his existience?! WHAT!?

For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak.Agreed. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined.I agree with the POWER statement, but God just pops in here again... Satan is said to be powerful, and he was imperfect, why aren't you proving His existence...? Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; That's what you JUST said...so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world.This sentence is just being re-worded over, and over again... Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. Yeah, yeah, everything has an opposite..that is SCIENCE... contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Think of it the other way around too.... without knowledge, there is no igonorance, without poor, there is no wealthy, with no HUMANS, there can be no God... Your pretty narrow minded pal...Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.Again, with the obvious statements...Without Cows there would be no beef, without eyes, WE COULDN'T FUCKING SEE!

It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions -- that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor.Governed is a selected word... Man can be his own Boss. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential.People depend on God last. First it's each other, then medicine, and science, then comes faith... people will take meds over their faith in God to heal them.

In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved.Obviously, AGAIN. EYES MAN, EYES! Still, people need to GET sick, they just aren't born that way...(Often) You have to GET a disease to be "sick" and then someone you were just sitting beside, with Athsma, or the flu, is now considered more healthy than you

Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation.And if he is like his creation, the creation created itself, did you not say? Anyways, again, God pops out of nowhere here. If you can't have eyes, you can't see, so clearly, God exists.((Detect Sarcasm here...))

Throughout the world of existence it is the same; the smallest created thing proves that there is a creator. For instance, this piece of bread proves that it has a maker.But is that maker GOD? Was the Earl of Sandwich GOD? The second coming of Christ?! OH SHIT! WE MISSED IT!

Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!Self creation... Read ANGELS AND DEMONS, to find out more about THE BIG BANG THEORY, and it's coexistence with God, you might have to open your mind a bit, if you can do that...

These obvious arguments are adduced for weak souls; but if the inner perception be open, a hundred thousand clear proofs become visibleThus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the bounty of the spirit, it is necessary to establish external arguments.
I am weak, therefore, you are strong.. I am weak for arguing...You, the strong, are clearly God then. ALL HAIL.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 4)
...

clearly a banana containing all perfections cannot be the product of something with fewer perfections than itself. therefore it must grow on the perfect banana tree. which, in turn, obviously cannot spring from imperfect ground, and therefore must grow on the perfect island. so, to find the perfect banana, you must travel to the perfect island.

that should be easy enough.


I know where my island is to find my perfect "banana" is. Woot!

I have wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that first post, i will never get them back. :mad:

I have wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that first post, i will never get them back. :mad:

I'm sorry. If I could some how give you back the time I would.:fluffle:

ummm... I've found no proof of Gods existence through science. I've also found no proof of Gods lack of existence. I'm content with the fact that I'm simply a process of evolution. If there was a creator we are nothing special. Merely part of a process started many moons ago.

Your heart is merely an organ. You'll find no proof of God there. In fact it's dangerous to go looking for proof where it can't possibly be found. That's the road to madness, not reason.

One man's madness is another's reason.

Further, we have no proof of evolution either. Can you show me evidence of our evolutionary past? No, you can't. It's been proved that we did not come from the neaderthals'.

We don't have proof of evolution?!? Oh, I beg to differ. No, we didn't come from Neandertals, they were a different species. There is a mountain of proof for evolution from fossilized remains right down to the very DNA of every living animal on this planet. Just because YOU are not awaere of the proof, don't make the arrogant assumption that it does not exist. Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a proven fact. Sorry to tell you that.

You know, proof of God is easy to obtain. Stand up and swing your leg. Now sit back down. You have just initiated several million chemical reactions, anyone of which went smoothly. If just one of those reactions say, used more energy than usual, your kneecap could have been blown off.(thats not stretching the imagination. look at the chemicals used in your body, then look at homemade bomb ingredients lists.)
This argument simply says that we developed in a way which is viable within the laws of nature, not anything about how that process happened. But, of course, we have to be viable, otherwise we wouldn't be here! Many millions of species became unviable and died out; and an almost infiinite number of species have never existed because they couldn't exist within this universe (quite apart from the gazillions which could have existed if evolutionary events had occurred differently).

Further, we have no proof of evolution either. Can you show me evidence of our evolutionary past? No, you can't. It's been proved that we did not come from the neaderthals'.
No modern scientist has claimed that we are descended from Neanderthals - they are our evolutionary cousins, not ancestors - so this is a red herring.

This is mountains of proof that we have evolved. Have you tried reading and understanding the real science, instead of the nonsense put about by creationists et al?

Hi again, Thoughts. Hope you don't mind me chipping in here as one alternative spiritualist to another.

PROOFS AND EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.
I wonder about this as an idea, you know. Saying that man did not create himself doesn't necessarily mean he was created by one unique being, nor does it suggest anything whatsoever about any hypothetical beings that may have possibly created it.

Case in point? Did God create himself? Or does he have an external origin?

Somewhere along the line, there must be something that created itself, or that was created by processes uninfluenced by causality. Either of those are counterpoints to the idea of a necessary external origin.

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... the Computer AI programmer. Geeky as heck, with an imperfection list longer than Santa's naughty list, and who gets poked fun at by the voice-actors and clerical staff at his workplace. And yet, he creates beings for a living.

Are they real? To them, I'm sure they are.

Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.
This analogy is confusing... Paintings are implicitly subjective, and no painting can be held to be universally perfect. Furthermore, even masters make mistakes; who knows how many scrapped copies any given painter has to go through to create a generally regarded work of art? And who's to say that a given painter must be of perfection just because he happens to create fine art? I happen to know several very talented artists who spend their lives in a manner that some might call immoral (though I just call self-harming).

The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.

For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world. Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.
Okay, this one really does go beyond stretching liklihood. It's rather similar to the Platonic Ideal Realisation, but a common refutation to that is not all that we can imagine necessarily exists. I can imagine a human being with the power of flight that can make objects appear at will and generate forcefields that repel bullets, but my own inability to match up to this standard doesn't mean that this human exists.

Ignorance, weakness and poverty are all relativistic terms that are applied by an individual based on his own standing in regards to the society around him. The very fact that people we consider knowledgable, powerful and rich all exist questions the idea of a universal definition of these terms.

It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions -- that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor.
This is true, though being a governor is not necessarily a one-way relationship;
Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential.
This is not.

Does a man's stomach depend on the man? Yes; without membership of that man, the stomach would be incapable of sustenance. Does a man's self govern his stomach? Yes, he does; he decides when to provide it with necessary provisions and when to have it do work to his benefit. Does a man's self depend on his stomach? Yes; without a stomach, a man would be incapable of taking in things with which to sustain both himself and his stomach.

Life is full of the concept of codependence and mutual gain.

In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved.
This is an interesting one. Sickness and Health are not mutually exclusive. A person's health isn't judged by what disease he has at any given time; rather, it is an assessment of a person's ability to resist disease. Someone can be perfectly healthy and yet be fighting off a cold virus. But semantics aside - couldn't everyone in the world be suffering from a cold? In which case, the idea of being well might just come from previous experience.

Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation.

Throughout the world of existence it is the same; the smallest created thing proves that there is a creator. For instance, this piece of bread proves that it has a maker.

Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!
Wait a second... something doesn't seem right here... Is this... a Parody?

These obvious arguments are adduced for weak souls; but if the inner perception be open, a hundred thousand clear proofs become visible. Thus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the bounty of the spirit, it is necessary to establish external arguments.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 4)
Aha! Now I get what this guy is on about.

Wow, Baha is far, Far smarter than a subtle skim-through of this article suggests.

He is trying to explain things in a way people with a preconceived notion of God can understand so that they can begin to look into the concepts. These notations aren't supposed to be proof of God in any reasonable sense; they're supposed to be ideas you question and use as a basis to think around the topics.

Was that what you were asking us to do by reading this? Hats off to you, if it was; you've captured the spirit of the passage admirably!

Well, on the positive side...no posts have been inflammatory enough for me to bring out the "Intelligent design theory of a genetisist well respected in the scientific community and a devout methodist explanation of god " gun.


Don't make me come in there. I shall smite thee with my theory on how god CAN tie in to evolution. Most people think they are conflicting doctrines, however, parts of both are supported by parts of the other.

He certainly is! The same argument can be extended to prove the existence of the perfect banana although I'm dubious that this perfect banana exists - they all seem to be too stringy or not ripe enough or not quite even enough in just the right shade of yellow. Hmmm, I'm not sure the ontological argument works you know...

Actually... there WAS a perfect banana... I was going to use it as proof in JUST such a debate as this!

But... I got hungry.... :(

Good job...you ate the perfect bannana...


:headbang:

All of these issues and more have been resolved by the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has even shown us how the decline in the number of pirates is responsible for global warming.

http://www.venganza.org/
*Yawn*

I am a devout Catholic (for the most part:) ), but about that perfect thing. A father could be drunken, wife beating, and un faithful, but his kid could be a little angel! I'm not saying that God does not exist, or that you wrong. Just that there's holes in your theory, along with other theories. And God, or at least this is what I think, doesn't want us to find proof scientifically or anything. He probably wants us to be faithful! Faith beats science all the time! Nice thinking, though.:)

Need of a proof of God's existence is lack of faith. Does my computer have any proof of my existence? Does my hair have any proof that I exist and believe it is part of a human being? ... Oh Wait! I am bald!

I wonder if God's bald...:confused:

I am a devout Catholic (for the most part:) ), but about that perfect thing. A father could be drunken, wife beating, and un faithful, but his kid could be a little angel! I'm not saying that God does not exist, or that you wrong. Just that there's holes in your theory, along with other theories. And God, or at least this is what I think, doesn't want us to find proof scientifically or anything. He probably wants us to be faithful! Faith beats science all the time! Nice thinking, though.:)


Faith beats science every time? Tell yourself that next time you're flying around in your plane built by faith rather than science. Should be fun!

We don't have proof of evolution?!? Oh, I beg to differ. No, we didn't come from Neandertals, they were a different species. There is a mountain of proof for evolution from fossilized remains right down to the very DNA of every living animal on this planet. Just because YOU are not awaere of the proof, don't make the arrogant assumption that it does not exist. Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a proven fact. Sorry to tell you that.


Clearly, Olth is the knowledge. You are the ignorant.

Hi again, Thoughts. Hope you don't mind me chipping in here as one alternative spiritualist to another.


I wonder about this as an idea, you know. Saying that man did not create himself doesn't necessarily mean he was created by one unique being, nor does it suggest anything whatsoever about any hypothetical beings that may have possibly created it.

Case in point? Did God create himself? Or does he have an external origin?

Somewhere along the line, there must be something that created itself, or that was created by processes uninfluenced by causality. Either of those are counterpoints to the idea of a necessary external origin.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... the Computer AI programmer. Geeky as heck, with an imperfection list longer than Santa's naughty list, and who gets poked fun at by the voice-actors and clerical staff at his workplace. And yet, he creates beings for a living.

Are they real? To them, I'm sure they are.


This analogy is confusing... Paintings are implicitly subjective, and no painting can be held to be universally perfect. Furthermore, even masters make mistakes; who knows how many scrapped copies any given painter has to go through to create a generally regarded work of art? And who's to say that a given painter must be of perfection just because he happens to create fine art? I happen to know several very talented artists who spend their lives in a manner that some might call immoral (though I just call self-harming).


Okay, this one really does go beyond stretching liklihood. It's rather similar to the Platonic Ideal Realisation, but a common refutation to that is not all that we can imagine necessarily exists. I can imagine a human being with the power of flight that can make objects appear at will and generate forcefields that repel bullets, but my own inability to match up to this standard doesn't mean that this human exists.

Ignorance, weakness and poverty are all relativistic terms that are applied by an individual based on his own standing in regards to the society around him. The very fact that people we consider knowledgable, powerful and rich all exist questions the idea of a universal definition of these terms.


This is true, though being a governor is not necessarily a one-way relationship;

This is not.

Does a man's stomach depend on the man? Yes; without membership of that man, the stomach would be incapable of sustenance. Does a man's self govern his stomach? Yes, he does; he decides when to provide it with necessary provisions and when to have it do work to his benefit. Does a man's self depend on his stomach? Yes; without a stomach, a man would be incapable of taking in things with which to sustain both himself and his stomach.

Life is full of the concept of codependence and mutual gain.


This is an interesting one. Sickness and Health are not mutually exclusive. A person's health isn't judged by what disease he has at any given time; rather, it is an assessment of a person's ability to resist disease. Someone can be perfectly healthy and yet be fighting off a cold virus. But semantics aside - couldn't everyone in the world be suffering from a cold? In which case, the idea of being well might just come from previous experience.


Wait a second... something doesn't seem right here... Is this... a Parody?


Aha! Now I get what this guy is on about.

Wow, Baha is far, Far smarter than a subtle skim-through of this article suggests.

He is trying to explain things in a way people with a preconceived notion of God can understand so that they can begin to look into the concepts. These notations aren't supposed to be proof of God in any reasonable sense; they're supposed to be ideas you question and use as a basis to think around the topics.

Was that what you were asking us to do by reading this? Hats off to you, if it was; you've captured the spirit of the passage admirably!

You are far smarter than I could ever hope to be, and I am not even sure if you are just poking fun at me, which is ok if you are.

I would have to say that your last statement is correct that Abdu'l Baha was offering to people a starting point to think about the concept of God. The statements were not meant to be proof positive of the existence of God. Those of who believe in God also probably agree that the Creator of all things must be ultimately beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. To think that proof of God is something that is easily and readily available seems, to me a bit ludcrious. Anyway, whatever you intent was the statement is just a stating point.

Faith beats science every time? Tell yourself that next time you're flying around in your plane built by faith rather than science. Should be fun!


oh oh thats a burn!

oh oh thats a burn!
WORD!

WORD!

Thanks

You are far smarter than I could ever hope to be, and I am not even sure if you are just poking fun at me, which is ok if you are.

I would have to say that your last statement is correct that Abdu'l Baha was offering to people a starting point to think about the concept of God. The statements were not meant to be proof positive of the existence of God. Those of who believe in God also probably agree that the Creator of all things must be ultimately beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. To think that proof of God is something that is easily and readily available seems, to me a bit ludcrious. Anyway, whatever you intent was the statement is just a stating point.


Here's a Good Thought, GOODTHOUGHTS--- STOP TALKING. you're only making an idiot of yourself.
I have faith your an ass. Clearly, i am correct.

Faith keeps those people who suffer in africa and other parts of the world under dictatorships from commiting suicide or (in France's case) from stuffing the current gov full of bullets and taking the nation.If it wasn't for faith people would either get fed up or give up...and all you liberals always cry about it when people do either. You all better thank god that the poor have faith in something or they would be holding revolutions every week.

Faith beats science every time? Tell yourself that next time you're flying around in your plane built by faith rather than science. Should be fun!
Okay, I retract that statement. I wasn't thinking. For a CHRISTIAN vs. atheist science(trying to prove God does not exist), faith beats THAT every time. There's always a question that can counter their answers.

Here's a Good Thought, GOODTHOUGHTS--- STOP TALKING. you're only making an idiot of yourself.
I have faith your an ass. Clearly, i am correct.

Such is life.

Okay, I retract that statement. I wasn't thinking. For a CHRISTIAN vs. atheist science(trying to prove God does not exist), faith beats THAT every time. There's always a question that can counter their answers.

Faith doesn't make you right. Because you believe it, doesn't make it so, no matter what the issue.
Questions might counter answers, but where's your counter? saying "I'm Right!" isn't a good counter...

Okay, I retract that statement. I wasn't thinking. For a CHRISTIAN vs. atheist science(trying to prove God does not exist), faith beats THAT every time. There's always a question that can counter their answers.

Which answers of evolution can be countered by faith questions? Please let us pagans know.

Such is life.

Life makes you an ass? Explain that... it makes no sense...

Anyways, Science always prevails over faith... When Jesus splits the atom, I'll tell you differently.

Ok basically your spech contradicts itself proving this theory is wrong (in my mind anyway) you say (or wherever/whoever the idea came from) that only a perfect being could create another. Surely a creation of a perfect being would be perfect as the original creature would be unable to make imperfections due to its status of perfection.
Or could it make perfect imperfections? Hmm...

Ok basically your spech contradicts itself proving this theory is wrong (in my mind anyway) you say (or wherever/whoever the idea came from) that only a perfect being could create another. Surely a creation of a perfect being would be perfect as the original creature would be unable to make imperfections due to its status of perfection.
Or could it make perfect imperfections? Hmm...

That confuses the hell out of me, but it makes sense, and justifies what we're saying. Word buday!

Well i would like to say that there have been educated arguments presented on both sides however...... there have been some very ignorant comments that have been made from blind faith. i believe that some people on this forum are taking the quote "the lord is our shepherd, and we are his sheep" a bit to Literally, blind faith is the root of the problems facing the modern catholic church. To blindly say that faith beats science, is exactly what has caused the controversy within the church over gay and lesbian marriages and abortions. Blind faith is Biblical ignorance!
Posts such as the one that have been made on this forum, by the "faithful" have been making finite statments and completely ignoring the existance of gray matter. Look before you leap, Faith beats science is the epitome of the "corrupt faith" that is running rampart within the Catholic church.

Here's a Good Thought, GOODTHOUGHTS--- STOP TALKING. you're only making an idiot of yourself.
I have faith your an ass. Clearly, i am correct.
Did you just miss my point? This isn't supposed to be a proof in any sense. The author himself admits that. It's not Thought's fault you're unwilling to so much as properly read the article, never mind even think about the issues it puts on display.

Well i would like to say that there have been educated arguments presented on both sides however...... there have been some very ignorant comments that have been made from blind faith. i believe that some people on this forum are taking the quote "the lord is our shepherd, and we are his sheep" a bit to Literally, blind faith is the root of the problems facing the modern catholic church. To blindly say that faith beats science, is exactly what has caused the controversy within the church over gay and lesbian marriages and abortions. Blind faith is Biblical ignorance!
Posts such as the one that have been made on this forum, by the "faithful" have been making finite statments and completely ignoring the existance of gray matter. Look before you leap, Faith beats science is the epitome of the "corrupt faith" that is running rampart within the Catholic church.

Very nicely put, Aertes. I can live withthat.

Life makes you an ass? Explain that... it makes no sense...

Anyways, Science always prevails over faith... When Jesus splits the atom, I'll tell you differently.

And when you know jesus has split the atom then jesus will be proved to exist cancelling out faith, and without faith he is nothing,therefore proving he exits proves he doesnt.


If i've made a mistake read "The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" by Douglas Adams.

Life makes you an ass? Explain that... it makes no sense...

Anyways, Science always prevails over faith... When Jesus splits the atom, I'll tell you differently.

Now, now don't get your undies all in a bunch. Everyone has a right to an opinion. I wasn't the one talking about faith. It was someone else.

Very nicely put, Aertes. I can live withthat.

Well said Olth...

The OP looks like 2+2=547.999 to me.

Well i would like to say that there have been educated arguments presented on both sides however...... there have been some very ignorant comments that have been made from blind faith. i believe that some people on this forum are taking the quote "the lord is our shepherd, and we are his sheep" a bit to Literally, blind faith is the root of the problems facing the modern catholic church. To blindly say that faith beats science, is exactly what has caused the controversy within the church over gay and lesbian marriages and abortions. Blind faith is Biblical ignorance!
Posts such as the one that have been made on this forum, by the "faithful" have been making finite statments and completely ignoring the existance of gray matter. Look before you leap, Faith beats science is the epitome of the "corrupt faith" that is running rampart within the Catholic church.

Much agreed.

And, if you were truly a Bible "fan", you would see that "God built us in his own image"... This contradicts your assinine "Painting" scenario, because IF God made us in hiw own image, according to you, he would be fictional. We made ourselves, according to you. Right on, good to see your finally joining the right side! Welcome aboard.

Did you just miss my point? This isn't supposed to be a proof in any sense. The author himself admits that. It's not Thought's fault you're unwilling to so much as properly read the article, never mind even think about the issues it puts on display.


sound slike someones upset cause they cant back up their argument... "well umm u didnt read it right. YOUR WRONG, god wins!"

Now, now don't get your undies all in a bunch. Everyone has a right to an opinion. I wasn't the one talking about faith. It was someone else.

Explain "Such is life"

:confused: The OP looks like 2+2=547.999 to me.
What?!

:confused:
What?!

Hes confused genius

all this arguing is taking away my horny:(

Faith keeps those people who suffer in africa and other parts of the world under dictatorships from commiting suicide or (in France's case) from stuffing the current gov full of bullets and taking the nation.If it wasn't for faith people would either get fed up or give up...and all you liberals always cry about it when people do either. You all better thank god that the poor have faith in something or they would be holding revolutions every week.

I wish the poor would stop believing in all this mythological nonsense. The poor need to rise up and revolt - they do not need faith.

Faith doesn't make you right. Because you believe it, doesn't make it so, no matter what the issue.
Questions might counter answers, but where's your counter? saying "I'm Right!" isn't a good counter...
Okay, but that's not my point. That is a bad counter, but when people say "There is no God!" What about cases when people were crippled and prayed to God every night, and were able to walk again? What about the enexplainable voice in you head that gives people enough strength to walk out of the burning building when there seemed to be no hope? There's mysteries that can't be solved with this blabbering of science and gases and NO! Reliable people have SEEN actual God-related things! I'm not saying every scientist is going to Hell! There IS some things that the Bible is wrong about, like Adam & Eve. I believe in evolution, but science just can't explain everything. Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.

You know, proof of God is easy to obtain. Stand up and swing your leg. Now sit back down. You have just initiated several million chemical reactions, anyone of which went smoothly. If just one of those reactions say, used more energy than usual, your kneecap could have been blown off.(thats not stretching the imagination. look at the chemicals used in your body, then look at homemade bomb ingredients lists.) Further, we have no proof of evolution either. Can you show me evidence of our evolutionary past? No, you can't. It's been proved that we did not come from the neaderthals'.

Uhm, chemically, most things are the same anyway. You haven't proven anything. Molecules form ON THEIR OWN through covalent and ionic bonds, that is what seperates explosives (Octanitrocubane C8N8O16 [The world's most powerful non-nuclear explosive], RDX C3H6N6O6 [The primary component of C4 explosive]) from human beings (CHONSP in varying amounts). So yes, science DOES have an explanation from that. Your body runs on sugar. Now your argument is that one flaw in 'God's Design', and our kneecaps would explode with enough force to destroy a lightly armored vehicles. This is inherently false. If you took the time to examine say, cellular respiration (the process that governs your metabolism) and the atomic structure of organic molecules and then compare it to explosive, you'd notice they are quite different.

Now beyond the bonding, here is where science comes in: Science has a series of atomic models that you can use to determine the exact way atoms bond. It's all very simple positive and negative energy. In fact, your explanation is a proof of science at work in your body (see above about how molecules are formed by bonding atoms).

Explosives MUST BE MADE ARTIFICIALLY. Do explosives occur in nature? Does dirt explode when you drop a lit cigarette on it? Nope. All explosives, from gunpowder to Octanitrocubane, musy be synthesized by human beings. In fact, your argument is bass-ackwards. You say that if God didn't exist our kneecaps would explode. But for that to happen, a technically capable organism would have to synthesize the explosive in your body. You know, like God.

Furthermore, your neanderthal argument is logical fallacy (strawman to be exact). No modern scientist says the neanderthal was our ancestor. The neanderthal was a relative that had a common descendant of ours. Proving the neanderthal was not our ancestor does not disprove evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory states we did not evolve from the neanderthal.

And yes I can show you evidence of my evolutionary past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

Another funny thing is that this helps me against your 'God keeps your knees from exploding' argument. If a perfect being would micromanage every molecule of our body to keep us from blowing up, then why would he add a completely useless organ into our bodies?

I wish the poor would stop believing in all this mythological nonsense. The poor need to rise up and revolt - they do not need faith.

Sure the poor need something to occupy their meaningless worthless lives as they drain the economy of its life blood.
Poor people [cartman quote] me off

Okay, but that's not my point. That is a bad counter, but when people say "There is no God!" What about cases when people were crippled and prayed to God every night, and were able to walk again? What about the enexplainable voice in you head that gives people enough strength to walk out of the burning building when there seemed to be no hope? There's mysteries that can't be solved with this blabbering of science and gases and NO! Reliable people have SEEN actual God-related things! I'm not saying every scientist is going to Hell! There IS some things that the Bible is wrong about, like Adam & Eve. I believe in evolution, but science just can't explain everything. Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.


coming from a family that owns several casinos id say, luck

Okay, but that's not my point. That is a bad counter, but when people say "There is no God!" What about cases when people were crippled and prayed to God every night, and were able to walk again?Medicine? What about the enexplainable voice in your head that gives people enough strength to walk out of the burning building when there seemed to be no hope?That's called your concience. And running out of a burning building? I'd be hauling ass outta there, because, Oh, I don't know, ITS THE BEST THING YOU COULD FUCKING DO There's mysteries that can't be solved with this blabbering of science and gases and NO! Reliable people have SEEN actual God-related things! I'm sorry, who is these people?I'm not saying every scientist is going to Hell! There IS some things that the Bible is wrong about, like Adam & Eve. I believe in evolution, but science just can't explain everything. Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.
That is, if the everloving, Merciful god made this fictional place you call: Hell.

Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. We are supposed to be scared into being religious?

If there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and loving God s/he would not send people to hell for not believing in a religion.

Which answers of evolution can be countered by faith questions? Please let us pagans know.
Please, stop doing this to me. I'm not calling you bad people. I believe in evolution and alot of sciencey things, but I mainly believe in the Lord. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or insult you, so if you take it as an insult, let me know. I have beliefs that the Church hates! For one, I'm a democratic socialist. I'm pretty sure they don't like that. Just please, don't take these posts the wrong way. It would be hypocritical to my beliefs to make fun of you for your beliefs.

Explain "Such is life"

Ok. Then I just gotta go. "Such is life," is usually taken to mean something along the lines of, "Well if you don't like me or what I say that just happens. I can't be liked by everyone all of the time." I can expand that to say in this case it was meant to mean that if you want to call me an ass go ahead. I am still who I am. What you think of me doesn't make me smart, dumb, good-looking or ugly or popular. Such is life.

Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.

Are you suggesting we should all take up religion as insurance against Hell rather than because we really believe it? That just don't seem quite right to me.

Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a proven fact. Sorry to tell you that.

Evolution is most definitely a theory and not a fact. Just like Newtonian mechanics that you learn in school is not a fact (it was superceded by relativity) and relativity is a theory and not a fact (it breaks down on small scales) and quantum mechanics is not a fact (it doesn't work well with gravity).

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't believe these things, but in science you can never prove that anything is true, only that some things are not true. You never know what counterexample tomorrow might hold.

Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.

That doesn't work. Suppose the "Devil" is really God and sends to hell all religious people and sends all the atheists to heaven. Then being devout brings you eternal damnation.

Okay, but that's not my point. That is a bad counter, but when people say "There is no God!" What about cases when people were crippled and prayed to God every night, and were able to walk again? What about the enexplainable voice in you head that gives people enough strength to walk out of the burning building when there seemed to be no hope? There's mysteries that can't be solved with this blabbering of science and gases and NO! Reliable people have SEEN actual God-related things! I'm not saying every scientist is going to Hell! There IS some things that the Bible is wrong about, like Adam & Eve. I believe in evolution, but science just can't explain everything. Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.

Bad argument. The voice in my head that tells me to get the fuck out of a burning building is survival instinct honed through natural selection. It is the same survival instinct that tells animals to flee predators that are much faster and stronger than them.

That is, if the everloving, Merciful god made this fictional place you call: Hell.

As an atheist i can understand why many insecure people lean on god as their crutch when anything bad happens. Forgiveness is apparently preached by jesus
will someone please explain if god exists and is merciful and stuff why would he send them to hell? And if you repent your sins are forgiven?
SCUM-Yes god i did murder millions of people but hey i repented on my deathbed.

GOD-sure welcome to heaven
Somewhat unlikely?

That is, if the everloving, Merciful god made this fictional place you call: Hell.

I like to think that my bone structure, muscle tissue, and bodily strength prevent my knees from spontaneous explosiveness, but, you know, God is aight too... I mean, making my knees NOT explode was freakin' GENIUS! What a guy!

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. We are supposed to be scared into being religious?

If there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and loving God s/he would not send people to hell for not believing in a religion.

:rolleyes: I Heart you.

As an atheist i can understand why many insecure people lean on god as their crutch when anything bad happens. Forgiveness is apparently preached by jesus
will someone please explain if god exists and is merciful and stuff why would he send them to hell? And if you repent your sins are forgiven?
SCUM-Yes god i did murder millions of people but hey i repented on my deathbed.

GOD-sure welcome to heaven
Somewhat unlikely?

I believe if you "Sin" and all that Jazz, should God exist, you just cease to exist, as opposed to Heaven.

Please, stop doing this to me. I'm not calling you bad people. I believe in evolution and alot of sciencey things, but I mainly believe in the Lord. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or insult you, so if you take it as an insult, let me know. I have beliefs that the Church hates! For one, I'm a democratic socialist. I'm pretty sure they don't like that. Just please, don't take these posts the wrong way. It would be hypocritical to my beliefs to make fun of you for your beliefs.

i just think hes trying to make you think before u post. come of ur posts had major holes in them. its not against u...unless u knoe he hates u and wants to turn u into a lamp shade or something:)

i just think hes trying to make you think before u post. come of ur posts had major holes in them. its not against u...unless u knoe he hates u and wants to turn u into a lamp shade or something:)

That'd be sweet, I'd like to be turned into a floor tile.

I believe if you "Sin" and all that Jazz, should God exist, you just cease to exist, as opposed to Heaven.

Then what was the point in your existance in the first place? as if god is all knowing he would see what was "destined for you" and rub your name out of the gene pool.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. We are supposed to be scared into being religious?

If there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and loving God s/he would not send people to hell for not believing in a religion.
That's not what I mean! Perhaps I should list what I mean by these posts:
-God is good
-God exists.
-You can easily shoot holes in aethiest science (the same with Christainity)
-If you're an aethiest, I'm pretty sure you will get SOME sort of punishment (pergutory or Hell)
-As long as your religion does not restrict human rights, ect., and you practice it, you can get into Heaven.
-Evolution exists
-The Big bang happened
-God started the 2 things started right above this.
-A women should have a right to an abortion(if I were a woman, and pregnant, I PERSONALLY would not get one)
-You can have your beliefs, and I can have mine
-You can express your beliefs, and so can I
-I can shoot holes through your beliefs, and so can you.
- You CANNOT disrespect my beliefs, or be sarcastic and make fun of them. Nor will I

Understand now?:D

That'd be sweet, I'd like to be turned into a floor tile.

Well im sure you have the capacity.

sound slike someones upset cause they cant back up their argument... "well umm u didnt read it right. YOUR WRONG, god wins!"
Firstly, I don't believe in that kind of God. God doesn't win anything in this discussion anyway. But I do believe in wisdom when I see it, and believe me, if you read and understand the last paragraph, you'll notice that the whole thing is one great big parody on commonly held religious fallousy. Baha is making something explicitly clear; such arguments are for people who are incomplete in their spirituality, as the blindingly obvious holes in its ideas should allow them to see. It's supposed to spur people on into deeper consideration of their ideas.

And I must ask, what exactly do you think my argument is? Did you read my contribution to the discussion? Because I think you're just noticing that I happen to be supporting the Original Poster on something and judging me explicitly on that basis.

Zurtania, were you divinely inspired to those beliefs? Since they do not match with the Chruch you follow, and the Bible states all later revelations are false, then they must be your own personal beliefs and not the actual workings of any assumed monotheist system.

That's not what I mean! Perhaps I should list what I mean by these posts:
-God is good
-God exists.
-You can easily shoot holes in aethiest science (the same with Christainity)
-If you're an aethiest, I'm pretty sure you will get SOME sort of punishment (pergutory or Hell)
-As long as your religion does not restrict human rights, ect., and you practice it, you can get into Heaven.
-Evolution exists
-The Big bang happened
-God started the 2 things started right above this.
-A women should have a right to an abortion(if I were a woman, and pregnant, I PERSONALLY would not get one)
-You can have your beliefs, and I can have mine
-You can express your beliefs, and so can I
-I can shoot holes through your beliefs, and so can you.
- You CANNOT disrespect my beliefs, or be sarcastic and make fun of them. Nor will I

Understand now?:D

This is an extension of your last post, saying "I'm right, your wrong."
You Christians are all the same, so narrow minded, and shallow... You don't understand the BBTheory do you? God couldn't have done it, the theory is PURE SCIENCE. Understand now?

- You CANNOT disrespect my beliefs, or be sarcastic and make fun of them. Nor will I

Understand now?:D

What if my beliefs are to ridicule your beliefs? am i free to practice them?

I propose that the Universe is large beyond all human comprehension. I propose that there are extra-terrestrial beings out there somewhere with similar beliefs to us. Do we want to be so cocky as to believe that the Universe with all it's vastness, mass and energy was made for us and us alone? Do we want to be so close minded that we believe that we alone were made in God's image when, chances are, other sentient beings in the universe are probably very different from us?

Well im sure you have the capacity.

And I'm sure you would be turned into a few litres of Toilet Water. :)

What if my beliefs are to ridicule your beliefs? am i free to practice them?

I liked that. :)

i just think hes trying to make you think before u post. come of ur posts had major holes in them. its not against u...unless u knoe he hates u and wants to turn u into a lamp shade or something:)
I don't take it as an insult at all. I just think, don't take offense to this, that'd be taking a cowards way out to turn to a new religion if you don't like your current one. First, unless your god(are you Christian?) comes to you in a dream or something and says he/she hates you, then I don't think they hate you. Also, it could be a test of your faith, like in the story of Job or something.

Firstly, I don't believe in that kind of God. God doesn't win anything in this discussion anyway. But I do believe in wisdom when I see it, and believe me, if you read and understand the last paragraph, you'll notice that the whole thing is one great big parody on commonly held religious fallousy. Baha is making something explicitly clear; such arguments are for people who are incomplete in their spirituality, as the blindingly obvious holes in its ideas should allow them to see. It's supposed to spur people on into deeper consideration of their ideas.

And I must ask, what exactly do you think my argument is? Did you read my contribution to the discussion? Because I think you're just noticing that I happen to be supporting the Original Poster on something and judging me explicitly on that basis.

right on the nose:)

Evolution is most definitely a theory and not a fact. Just like Newtonian mechanics that you learn in school is not a fact (it was superceded by relativity) and relativity is a theory and not a fact (it breaks down on small scales) and quantum mechanics is not a fact (it doesn't work well with gravity).

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't believe these things, but in science you can never prove that anything is true, only that some things are not true. You never know what counterexample tomorrow might hold.

Ummm....just because ONE idea in science is a theory does not make ALL ideas in science a theory. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you choose to ignore the facts that's fine by me, but the facts are still there.

And since when can science only disprove things rather than prove them. Science tells us that sound does not travel in a vacuum (for example). Does this not tell us something that is true? Science tells us that my DNA is made up DNA taken from my mother and my father. Is that not proving us that something is true? I don't understand what you meant by this.

I propose that the Universe is large beyond all human comprehension. I propose that there are extra-terrestrial beings out there somewhere with similar beliefs to us. Do we want to be so cocky as to believe that the Universe with all it's vastness, mass and energy was made for us and us alone? Do we want to be so close minded that we believe that we alone were made in God's image when, chances are, other sentient beings in the universe are probably very different from us?

Ok its bad enough political correctness is forced on us will you people force it on the universe as well?

Hmm...This reminds me of something...what could it be?




http://www.fgmma.com/media/cat_Wallpaper/1680x1050/passion_of_the_christ_2.jpg

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. We are supposed to be scared into being religious?

If there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and loving God s/he would not send people to hell for not believing in a religion.


this is an example of the blind faith and ignorance i was reffering to. the uneducated masses, taking biblical sayings litteraly are causing arguments and talking about things that they do not understand. Faith is about believing and interperatation of whatever religouse texts your religion studies. To take biblical quotes litteraly is not religion, or even an interpretation of litterature. Think about and analize what you are saying before you say it. the loving god requires little more than an honest life out of every man, woman and child the pass through the gates into heaven. Religion is not a scare tactic, religion is not the root evil of his world.

This is an extension of your last post, saying "I'm right, your wrong."
You Christians are all the same, so narrow minded, and shallow... You don't understand the BBTheory do you? God couldn't have done it, the theory is PURE SCIENCE. Understand now?
NO. YOU'RE the one who's being shallow. you just.... THROW AWAY beliefs of other people. You are making very angry. You're making a generalazation of all Christians! Did I SAY that all athieist are Satan's children? NO. Did I SAY I'm right you're wrong? NO. Now, unless you can EXPLAIN yourself, SHUT YOUR DAMNABLE MOUTH AND STOP BEING SUCH A FREAKING NAZI!:mad:

That's not what I mean! Perhaps I should list what I mean by these posts:
-God is good
-God exists.
-You can easily shoot holes in aethiest science (the same with Christainity)
Please do. Scientist loves holes in their theory. That way we can make them better.

-If you're an aethiest, I'm pretty sure you will get SOME sort of punishment (pergutory or Hell)
-As long as your religion does not restrict human rights, ect., and you practice it, you can get into Heaven.

This is pure speculation on your part. It is as valid as the belief of my next door neighbour that thinks he will be reborn as a mighty warrior in Valhallah to fight and drink and die for eternity.

What makes your assumption more valid that my neighbour's?

The rest of your opinion, I have no beef with. Even if I disagree with some of it.

right on the nose:)
Thank you. I feel vindicated now. ^^;

Hmm...This reminds me of something...what could it be?




http://www.fgmma.com/media/cat_Wallpaper/1680x1050/passion_of_the_christ_2.jpg

Excellent!:D

I liked that. :)
love you too man

Ok its bad enough political correctness is forced on us will you people force it on the universe as well?

I wouldn't say I was trying to enforce political correctness on the Universe, just trying to make the point that there's a lot to take in when considering the existance of a God, and we have to bear in mind that there are other people out there who share this God, if he/she/it exists. We've placed ourselves in the frame and cut out the rest of the picture...

NO. YOU'RE the one who's being shallow. you just.... THROW AWAY beliefs of other people. You are making very angry. You're making a generalazation of all Christians! Did I SAY that all athieist are Satan's children? NO. Did I SAY I'm right you're wrong? NO. Now, unless you can EXPLAIN yourself, SHUT YOUR DAMNABLE MOUTH AND STOP BEING SUCH A FREAKING NAZI!:mad:


You know.... Hitler was a "God Warrior"... He killed for GOD... UH OH! i do not condone what he did but your ignorant use of the term nazi brought this fact to my mind.

NO. YOU'RE the one who's being shallow. you just.... THROW AWAY beliefs of other people. You are making very angry. You're making a generalazation of all Christians! Did I SAY that all athieist are Satan's children? NO. Did I SAY I'm right you're wrong? NO. Now, unless you can EXPLAIN yourself, SHUT YOUR DAMNABLE MOUTH AND STOP BEING SUCH A FREAKING NAZI!:mad:
Its good you are so patient and comfortable with your views.
and so what if he THROWS AWAY beliefs of other people? his/her/its opinion!
Freespeech for all!
Seriously loosen up!

Please do. Scientist loves holes in their theory. That way we can make them better.


This is pure speculation on your part. It is as valid as the belief of my next door neighbour that thinks he will be reborn as a mighty warrior in Valhallah to fight and drink and die for eternity.

What makes your assumption more valid that my neighbour's?

The rest of your opinion, I have no beef with. Even if I disagree with some of it.

Okey-doke! There's some things that are just... unexplainable. I'm not talking about the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sammich, or a picture of Jesus Christ in a water stain. I'm talking about the babies who fall from the tops of houses and survive. I'm talking about the quadrapledrics who get up and walk. The only way I personally can explain it is some kinda divine being.

NO. YOU'RE the one who's being shallow. you just.... THROW AWAY beliefs of other people. You are making very angry. You're making a generalazation of all Christians! Did I SAY that all athieist are Satan's children? NO.

But you did just call him a Nazi... Want to back that up or is it just a product of your assumptions?

Anyway, here's the deal: Your list provides what you assume to be God's principles. They sound about as valid as any other religious principles, I'll grant you that.

But like all beliefs they originate in the human mind, not from an otherwordly being. There's plenty of evidence for the Greek myths too, but do many of us consider them valid today? Nope. Religious ideas are always changing, from the pantheon to scientology as a result of the human mind, not divine intervention. The idea that Jesus died for our sins is no more valid than the idea that one of Greece's great kings came from the ejaculation of Hephaestus upon the earth or the idea that humans came to earth on jet airliners and that we fought a war with giant insects for global supremacy a few thousand years ago.

EDIT: In your last post you say that you can't explain it so it must be god.

argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy.

I wouldn't say I was trying to enforce political correctness on the Universe, just trying to make the point that there's a lot to take in when considering the existance of a God, and we have to bear in mind that there are other people out there who share this God, if he/she/it exists. We've placed ourselves in the frame and cut out the rest of the picture...

sure but ill take it in when it affects me as is my stance on life and the stance of many people who practise the art of ignorance

You know.... Hitler was a "God Warrior"... He killed for GOD... UH OH! i do not condone what he did but your ignorant use of the term nazi brought this fact to my mind.
You can't use that argument unless you assume Stalin killed on behalf of Atheism. Which we both know is false. Both Dictators used the two religiosities merely as enablers for actions that they probably would have done anyway.

Its good you are so patient and comfortable with your views.
and so what if he THROWS AWAY beliefs of other people? his/her/its opinion!
Freespeech for all!
Seriously loosen up!
He's not a Nazi because he's an atheist, if that's what you're talking about. It's because he can't seem to tolerate any religion with a God. That is really like a Nazi. I'm sorry I virtually yelled at him/her.

You can't use that argument unless you assume Stalin killed on behalf of Atheism. Which we both know is false. Both Dictators used the two religiosities merely as enablers for actions that they probably would have done anyway.

Did you know the klu klux klan is a branch of christianity? Religion has been an excuse to find fault with others through history.
So is the plight of the believers of something so goddamn stupid.

He's not a Nazi because he's an atheist, if that's what you're talking about. It's because he can't seem to tolerate any religion with a God. That is really like a Nazi. I'm sorry I virtually yelled at him/her.

Let's see. Nazis didn't execute all Christians. Nor did they slaughter Muslims in North Africa.

Argument disproven.

EDIT:

Also, German troops had belts and other equipment with inscriptions that translate to 'God is on Our Side'. Not saying Nazis fought in the name of God but its not like they refused to allow Christians.

Did you know the klu klux klan is a branch of christianity? Religion has been an excuse to find fault with others through history.
So is the plight of the believers of something so goddamn stupid.
and by "goddamn stupid" i of course mean the kkk etc.... i apologize for any offence caused...except for if i dont like you or your not planning to take legal action.

Okey-doke! There's some things that are just... unexplainable. I'm not talking about the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sammich, or a picture of Jesus Christ in a water stain. I'm talking about the babies who fall from the tops of houses and survive. I'm talking about the quadrapledrics who get up and walk. The only way I personally can explain it is some kinda divine being.
So, because you don't understand it readily, it MUST be God.

Furthermore, what makes you think that your God is THE God. There could be many of them, there could be only one but not the one you think and it could also be an all-encompasing energy-type thing (think Karma).

So, why do you leap to the conclusion that when a quadraplegic gets up and walk there MUST be an act of YOUR god? Excuse me but when I see a quadraplegic get up and walk, I assume I'm getting hoowinked by some travelling magician out to make me spend my money. That or the condition was psycho-somatic.

But you did just call him a Nazi... Want to back that up or is it just a product of your assumptions?

Anyway, here's the deal: Your list provides what you assume to be God's principles. They sound about as valid as any other religious principles, I'll grant you that.

But like all beliefs they originate in the human mind, not from an otherwordly being. There's plenty of evidence for the Greek myths too, but do many of us consider them valid today? Nope. Religious ideas are always changing, from the pantheon to scientology as a result of the human mind, not divine intervention. The idea that Jesus died for our sins is no more valid than the idea that one of Greece's great kings came from the ejaculation of Hephaestus upon the earth or the idea that humans came to earth on jet airliners and that we fought a war with giant insects for global supremacy a few thousand years ago.

EDIT: In your last post you say that you can't explain it so it must be god.

argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy.

Okay, I called him a Nazi because he was untolerable to anything I said, no matter what. Maybe I was too. What I mean by unexplainable, is that lots of those families or people were faithful to Christianity. It's just.... well, I can't begin to explain it. Lots of my faith and religion is not fact. It's mystery. Who knows? Maybe there is no God, or kings do come from semen(:eek:). I will try not to shoot holes through beliefs anymore. If you believe there's no God, that's just your opinion.

By the way, about the Hitler being God's warrior, he called christianity a weak religion. He didn't genocide Christians for it, but he probably lied about being God's warrior. He was actaully into the occult. He probab;y said he was Christian to agin support(propaganda!)

So, because you don't understand it readily, it MUST be God.

Furthermore, what makes you think that your God is THE God. There could be many of them, there could be only one but not the one you think and it could also be an all-encompasing energy-type thing (think Karma).

So, why do you leap to the conclusion that when a quadraplegic gets up and walk there MUST be an act of YOUR god? Excuse me but when I see a quadraplegic get up and walk, I assume I'm getting hoowinked by some travelling magician out to make me spend my money. That or the condition was psycho-somatic.

No comment. You didn't "win" or prove me wrong, I just can't reply my reasons without getting into a huge shpeal on Christianity. No comment

I am going to call for a cooling down here please. To address the original issue presented from the Baha'i faith, I think it presents an interesting idea. However, the idea of the immovable mover, the creation's creator, or what have you is subjective completely. What began the beginning? Also, how does this necessarily stipulate a divine being such as that of any religion presently? There are many different deities, yet any of them would fufill the requirements set down. Ok, religion being a tool for suppresion, please, SHUT UP ABOUT IT ALREADY! (Cooling down myself now...)


Ok, honestly though, anything can be used as a front for oppresion, religion included, but also the ever loved science, logic, and reason. Religion is not any more inherently oppresive then these ideas, simply being yet another front used in the past as grounds for this oppresion. Ok, getting back on topic. The idea of God can neither be proved nor disproved. The continual paradox of beginning with out beginning will never truly be solved. As such, it seems this entire debate is moot. So be it!

- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary, Tyslan

Okay, I called him a Nazi because he was untolerable to anything I said, no matter what. Maybe I was too. What I mean by unexplainable, is that lots of those families or people were faithful to Christianity. It's just.... well, I can't begin to explain it. Lots of my faith and religion is not fact. It's mystery. Who knows? Maybe there is no God, or kings do come from semen(:eek:). I will try not to shoot holes through beliefs anymore. If you believe there's no God, that's just your opinion.

By the way, about the Hitler being God's warrior, he called christianity a weak religion. He didn't genocide Christians for it, but he probably lied about being God's warrior. He was actaully into the occult. He probab;y said he was Christian to agin support(propaganda!)

And your belief in God is just your opinion.

And the beliefs of Nazis are just their opinions.

That kind of puts everyone on the same level of factual accuracy, so there's no need for any kind of insults by anyone.

However, on Hitler, I can name a tone of Popes and other religious leaders who did the same thing, and not just Christians but Hindus and Muslims and plenty of others. The entire point of my argument is that every religious belief is not dictated by a supreme being, it is your or another human being's ideas, thus, God if he exists anywhere, is in the human psyche.

Did you know the klu klux klan is a branch of christianity? Religion has been an excuse to find fault with others through history.
So is the plight of the believers of something so goddamn stupid.
Hum. While I make no attempt to stand up for organised religion, I do think you're making unfair attributations, just like the whole Hitler thing. Would you like me to say the KGB was a branch of Atheism? Would you like me to suggest that through Pirates, all those who follow Pastafarianism are implicitly responsible for the looting and pillaging of nations across the globe? Or what about the Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbour; after all, they believed in no god too!

Just because religion is used as an excuse doesn't mean everyone who holds that religion is directly linked to things other people have done using it. That's like saying Internet users are either evil or stupid because some people have used it to distribute paedophilic imagery, plot to overthrow governments, threaten the life of a person hundreds of miles away, harass people with pamphlets or abusive and persistent sales pitches, steal private property and engage in enormous-scale deliberate and blind vandalism.

Okey-doke! There's some things that are just... unexplainable. I'm not talking about the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sammich, or a picture of Jesus Christ in a water stain. I'm talking about the babies who fall from the tops of houses and survive. I'm talking about the quadrapledrics who get up and walk. The only way I personally can explain it is some kinda divine being.

Babies survive that due to their compact body structure.


Anyways, I am well aware Hitler didn't Genocide the Christians, It was teh Jews, the original followers of God.

Okay, I called him a Nazi because he was untolerable to anything I said, no matter what. Maybe I was too. What I mean by unexplainable, is that lots of those families or people were faithful to Christianity. It's just.... well, I can't begin to explain it. Lots of my faith and religion is not fact. It's mystery. Who knows? Maybe there is no God, or kings do come from semen(:eek:). I will try not to shoot holes through beliefs anymore. If you believe there's no God, that's just your opinion.

By the way, about the Hitler being God's warrior, he called christianity a weak religion. He didn't genocide Christians for it, but he probably lied about being God's warrior. He was actaully into the occult. He probab;y said he was Christian to agin support(propaganda!)

Stop flip-flopping. Everytime you get proved wrong you go, "Okay, I was wrong BUT! ((Insert more bullshit here))!

And it was Lenin who said Chritianity was weak. Hitler was a follower of God, whether it was for Propaganda or not, it worked either way, didn't it?



And to conclude this post, You're only justifying God now due to falling babies...
The only way I personally can explain it is some kinda divine being-- Is what you said... Seeing as how you've been proved wrong here, because people survive that all the time, especially babies, whose bone structure is more stable than an adults, and is more compressed, making it stronger yaddi yaddi yadda, what are you going to feed us next?

He's not a Nazi because he's an atheist, if that's what you're talking about. It's because he can't seem to tolerate any religion with a God. That is really like a Nazi. I'm sorry I virtually yelled at him/her.


umm Nazi were mostly composed of Christians. i know this cause i have relatives that served Germany in WWII. so dont go thinking Nazi's were godless people destroying everything they touched. they followed hitler who compared his methods as being approached by god and said by eliminationg the Jews he was clensing the world.

http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html

one of the best videos on the net. shows one of the EXTREME christians. yes, we have people like this where I live :mad:

By the way, about the Hitler being God's warrior, he called christianity a weak religion. He didn't genocide Christians for it, but he probably lied about being God's warrior. He was actaully into the occult. He probab;y said he was Christian to agin support(propaganda!) I swear some of your comments come straight out of your ass, your only replying in an attempt to have the last word, for the sake of the general readers intelligence think before you post, i won't explain how you are wrong as Gambla and Dyeria have already done so.

I swear some of your comments come straight out of your ass, your only replying in an attempt to have the last word, for the sake of the general readers intelligence think before you post, i won't explain how you are wrong as Gambla and Dyeria have already done so.

Word. Now if this shithead would stop talking we would all be okay!

Winners!

Faith keeps those people who suffer in africa and other parts of the world under dictatorships from commiting suicide or (in France's case) from stuffing the current gov full of bullets and taking the nation.If it wasn't for faith people would either get fed up or give up...and all you liberals always cry about it when people do either. You all better thank god that the poor have faith in something or they would be holding revolutions every week.

So the opiate of the people is a good thing.

Seriously though. Some people rely on faith to keep from giving up, but some don't. I'm an atheist, and I'm doing just fine despite the setbacks I've had.

Which answers of evolution can be countered by faith questions? Please let us pagans know.
If you presume that a supernatural being is at work all evidence goes out the window. For example, evolution has a long and extensive fossil record in it's favor, but a theist creationist could just ask "couldn't god have put them there to give the appearance of evolution?" How do you counter that? Using supernatural explanations you could argue that the universe and everything in it was created five minutes ago. That's why the supernatural has no place in science.

Word. Now if this shithead would stop talking we would all be okay!
Ahhh well im all for free speach i just wish he/she would think before he posted it seems he/she is doing things for effect. Either way i think we have gotten off topic, i suggest we either make a new thread for this conversation to continue within, or we return to the original topic.

Before you start this crap you better have everything backed up by your 'evidence' that god exists even though is virtually NONE. Darwinism has so much evidence for it that it must be true. I believe in it. Look at the domesitcation of animals, or the fact that whales have hips, or we can grow tails, or a Russian scientist domesticated Foxes. All proof of darwinism.


Darwinism pwns you, just admit it.

The same argument can be extended to prove the existence of the perfect banana although I'm dubious that this perfect banana exists - they all seem to be too stringy or not ripe enough or not quite even enough in just the right shade of yellow.

I feel so appropriate.

Now, the God question. I'm an agnostic theist, and even I think the opening argument in this thread is lame. Someone said something about holes big enough to drive a truck through, and I'm inclined to concur.

I believe that there is a Something, not necessarily a God, or even an equally omniscient being -- simply because, in my view, it's an extreme presumption to assume that the human mind can understand the entire universe. Obviously, this opinion in and of itself neither proves nor disproves the existence of God: hence my agnosticism.

I'm an agnostic theist because the whole God/no God question appears to me as a big, eternal coin-flip, so all I've got to do is call heads or tails. There's nothing to win or lose by it until the coin's landed -- and I've a feeling that won't be happening anytime soon.

Ummm....just because ONE idea in science is a theory does not make ALL ideas in science a theory. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you choose to ignore the facts that's fine by me, but the facts are still there.

And since when can science only disprove things rather than prove them. Science tells us that sound does not travel in a vacuum (for example). Does this not tell us something that is true? Science tells us that my DNA is made up DNA taken from my mother and my father. Is that not proving us that something is true? I don't understand what you meant by this.

Just to be clear, Olth, I do believe in evolution. But it's not true beyond a shadow of a doubt - no one actually watched it happen. We have to rely on indirect evidence, which is strong, but never definite. Juries do sometimes conclude that an innocent person is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt."

My assertion that science only disproves things is based on this idea: scientists make observations, then create a theory of the world to exlpain this. Then they test their theory. If many tests agree with the theory, then it is probably correct, or close. But there's no way of knowing that the next test won't produce a result that doesn't agree with the theory, in which case we have to make a new theory that includes this new phenomenon. So right now evolution is passing its tests, but would have some trouble if for example Neanderthal fossils turned up in 3 billion year-old rocks.

Word. Now if this shithead would stop talking we would all be okay!


meh he/she is entitled to their own opinon. its just some of the facts they have shared has been faulty.

Just to be clear, Olth, I do believe in evolution. But it's not true beyond a shadow of a doubt - no one actually watched it happen. We have to rely on indirect evidence, which is strong, but never definite. Juries do sometimes conclude that an innocent person is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt."

My assertion that science only disproves things is based on this idea: scientists make observations, then create a theory of the world to exlpain this. Then they test their theory. If many tests agree with the theory, then it is probably correct, or close. But there's no way of knowing that the next test won't produce a result that doesn't agree with the theory, in which case we have to make a new theory that includes this new phenomenon. So right now evolution is passing its tests, but would have some trouble if for example Neanderthal fossils turned up in 3 billion year-old rocks.
Yeah we witnessed the evolution of wolves to dogs and foxes to domesticated foxes. If you wanted an extreme example of like a fish turning into some sort of land animal that would take millions and millions of years. Do you even know what you're talking about? jesus

there is a website (i forget the name) that offers anyone $200,000 if they can prove that God is not a bowl of pasta. so far no one has had actual proof to this and the jackpot remains to be $200,000. so if we cant distinguish if God pasta or not, how do we know God even exsists if there is no actual proof. how do we not know that the Greeks/romans are right about their pantheon? or if buddah is the actual "god" or the aztecs. thet fact is we dont. in my opinon, religion is a fad. it grows then dies, much like the belief in pantheon or the aztecs reliogious ways

Yeah we witnessed the evolution of wolves to dogs and foxes to domesticated foxes. If you wanted an extreme example of like a fish turning into some sort of land animal that would take millions and millions of years. Do you even know what you're talking about? jesus

to add to this, did we witness the creation of the earth. no. did we witness the "garden of eden" being created. no. have we ever witnesses God? no.

to add to this, did we witness the creation of the earth. no. did we witness the "garden of eden" being created. no. have we ever witnesses God? no.
What are you trying to prove? I don't get your post. Your talking as if I believe in God. I don't I'm an atheist. I believe in Evolution because that's how life started. Not that god bullcrap

Yeah we witnessed the evolution of wolves to dogs and foxes to domesticated foxes. If you wanted an extreme example of like a fish turning into some sort of land animal that would take millions and millions of years. Do you even know what you're talking about? jesus

Yes, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. For example, I know that the examples you give are examples of breeding, not of evolution.

Where is the need for insulting comments?

What I was really talking about as "the theory of evolution" is the theory that today's flora and fauna evolved over billions of years from simple bacteria and such. As I said, I *do* believe this theory, but I don't think it's provable "beyond the shadow of a doubt", as Olth claimed.

What are you trying to prove? I don't get your post. Your talking as if I believe in God. I don't I'm an atheist. I believe in Evolution because that's how life started. Not that god bullcrap

no no i was adding to your post that was quoting unagae

You jack-ass. You realize that making light of the "intelligent design" design debate in schools is going to cripple any real political moves you attempt make? Especially with something as absurd as a flying spaghetti monster. Just...stop it...for your own best interests.

Wow, did you copy that response directly from the website of our Lord and Creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Because somehow it sounds familiar...oh, that's right, because you assume that I am politically involved in the issue. Sorry, but I don't like in Kansas, and my name isn't Bobby Henderson.

That said...how dare you doubt my sincerity! And you are lucky I do not believe in violence, with you mocking the true Creator like that. Were I a radical Muslim, you would be in trouble. But the FSM preaches tolerance. But don't push me, or He may smite you with his Noodly Apendage.

Yes, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. For example, I know that the examples you give are examples of breeding, not of evolution.

Where is the need for insulting comments?

What I was really talking about as "the theory of evolution" is the theory that today's flora and fauna evolved over billions of years from simple bacteria and such. As I said, I *do* believe this theory, but I don't think it's provable "beyond the shadow of a doubt", as Olth claimed.
So aparently you concur that "micro evolution" takes place. Care to explain what the difference between that & "macro evolution" is?

And as so often explained 'round these parts, science doesn't prove things. It's a method for disproving things. Since the theories about evolution are sound science, they obviously aren't provable beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are simply the only logical explanations for the things we can observe.
Granted, in practical terms, the difference is inconsequencial, however, I get the feeling you'd love nothing better than to split whatever hairs you can grasp.

You should visit talkorigins or pay your local library a visit. Unless, of course, finding out that evolution is real would somehow ruin your life.

So aparently you concur that "micro evolution" takes place. Care to explain what the difference between that & "macro evolution" is?

And as so often explained 'round these parts, science doesn't prove things. It's a method for disproving things. Since the theories about evolution are sound science, they obviously aren't provable beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are simply the only logical explanations for the things we can observe.
Granted, in practical terms, the difference is inconsequencial, however, I get the feeling you'd love nothing better than to split whatever hairs you can grasp.

You should visit talkorigins or pay your local library a visit. Unless, of course, finding out that evolution is real would somehow ruin your life.

Yeesh, didn't I just say twice that I believe evolution??!

Perhaps I am splitting hairs. In any case, the only thing I don't agree with the claim that evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know perfectly well that there's strong evidence for it, and that's why I DO believe it. But "strong evidence" or "sound science" or "the 'only' logical explanation" for something doesn't make it true "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I think you'll agree that there's strong evidence for Newton's laws, and that the science behind them is sound. They are not, however, completely true, as Einstein showed us.

Sarcasm does not make your point of view true either. :rolleyes:

When you say "So aparently you concur that "micro evolution" takes place. Care to explain what the difference between that & "macro evolution" is?" what exactly are you trying to prove? As you say, I know that microevolution has been observed. As I will say again, I believe that macro evolution has taken place. The ONLY THING that I disagree with is the claim that macro evolution is true "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Perhaps I am splitting hairs here, as you say. The difference I see between macro and microevolution is that macroevolution has not been observed. I thus claim that we can not know macroevolution to be definitely true. Or have I fallen into your clever constructed trap? :eek: Is mine an inconsistent position? I don't think it is...

Sorry for the caps, but I feel like I'm being accused of taking positions I don't hold.

Yes, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. For example, I know that the examples you give are examples of breeding, not of evolution.

Where is the need for insulting comments?

What I was really talking about as "the theory of evolution" is the theory that today's flora and fauna evolved over billions of years from simple bacteria and such. As I said, I *do* believe this theory, but I don't think it's provable "beyond the shadow of a doubt", as Olth claimed.

Breeding is evolution. Evolution is a change in the gene pool over time. It changed because now they have floppy ears and they're mentality towards humans have changed. Living proof that it exists. Oh and Intelligent Design is a bunch of sh*t

The difference I see between macro and microevolution is that macroevolution has not been observed. I thus claim that we can not know macroevolution to be definitely true. Or have I fallen into your clever constructed trap? :eek: Is mine an inconsistent position? I don't think it is...

Just to chime in though we have not and probably will never be able to observe macroevolution we've seen bioproducts of it. There is a specific plant in Hawaii that originated in califorina and somehow got to the islands. The plant became a different species and evolved from the original california plant. I can't remember the name of the plant but I probably could find it if there is the desire to know.

<snip> read "The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" by Douglas Adams.
Always good advice ;)

Okay, but that's not my point. That is a bad counter, but when people say "There is no God!" What about cases when people were crippled and prayed to God every night, and were able to walk again?
Have any proof of this ever actually happening?


What about the enexplainable voice in you head that gives people enough strength to walk out of the burning building when there seemed to be no hope?
People are incapable of extraordinary action of their own accord?

There's mysteries that can't be solved with this blabbering of science and gases and NO! Reliable people have SEEN actual God-related things! I'm not saying every scientist is going to Hell! There IS some things that the Bible is wrong about, like Adam & Eve. I believe in evolution, but science just can't explain everything. Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.
So, since there are things that science hasn't explained yet, therefore there must be a god?

Yeesh, didn't I just say twice that I believe evolution??!
Misunderstanding on my part. Sorry 'bout that.
When you say "So aparently you concur that "micro evolution" takes place. Care to explain what the difference between that & "macro evolution" is?" what exactly are you trying to prove? As you say, I know that microevolution has been observed. As I will say again, I believe that macro evolution has taken place. The ONLY THING that I disagree with is the claim that macro evolution is true "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
I was asking you what you believe "macro evolution" is, because all it is, is "micro evolution". It's just more of it. So if you feel confident that the latter is known beyond the shadow of a doubt, then there's no reason to have reservations about the former either. There is no difference.

Sorry about jumping to conclusions about what you were saying, but it's like a daily thing on here that people are strong proponents of this "micro" thing, while they completely rule out all possibility of the "macro" thing. Change happens. Enough changes can look spectacular, but it's still nothing more than a whole lot of small changes. There's no mysterious difference between speciation & smaller scale evolution.

That's why I asked you what you thought the difference was.

As an atheist i can understand why many insecure people lean on god as their crutch when anything bad happens. Forgiveness is apparently preached by jesus
will someone please explain if god exists and is merciful and stuff why would he send them to hell? And if you repent your sins are forgiven?
SCUM-Yes god i did murder millions of people but hey i repented on my deathbed.

GOD-sure welcome to heaven
Somewhat unlikely?
My thoughts exactly
:fluffle:

<snip> I'm talking about the quadrapledrics who get up and walk.
Once again, show some proof of that ever actually happening.
The only way I personally can explain it is some kinda divine being.
And that should mean what to me?

Some people rely on faith to keep from giving up, but some don't. I'm an atheist, and I'm doing just fine despite the setbacks I've had.
Well by the thinking of some of these guys that obviously shows that you do believe in god, because if you didn't you'd have commited suicide, either that or you're lying and haven't encountered any setbacks in your life :rolleyes:

<Snip>
Perhaps I am splitting hairs. In any case, the only thing I don't agree with the claim that evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know perfectly well that there's strong evidence for it, and that's why I DO believe it. But "strong evidence" or "sound science" or "the 'only' logical explanation" for something doesn't make it true "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I think you'll agree that there's strong evidence for Newton's laws, and that the science behind them is sound. They are not, however, completely true, as Einstein showed us.
<Snip>
Sorry, seems I missed something not-so-minor.

Hopefully noone claims that anything is 100% correct, accurate & whatever. I don't, and didn't in the post you responded to. Present-day science will never claim anything to be the ultimate truth. The method can't be used to back such claims, as it works by proving stuff wrong, not proving stuff right.

I didn't say anything about the theories about evolution being true beyond the shadow of a doubt. You did. What I did say was, that if you accept the theories as correct, it makes no sense to only 'feel that way' some of the time. If there was the slightest indication that evolution only works some of the time, then pretty much everything we think we know would be instantly disproved.

Now the whole reason we clever animals invented & use science, is because proving things is relatively easy. Proving ideas to be right, however, is pretty much impossible. If we just tried to prove that our ideas were correct, noone would've ever found out that Newton's ideas didn't hold water. The process of elimination might be neverending, but it's a hell of a lot more accurate.

*snip* - this is the first post in this topic

I'm sorry, you look like a nice guy but when I read that I couldn't help but whisper in the back of my mind: stupidity, stupidity, stupidity...

Imo, God is for weak-minded people that don't want to actually think for themselves about what's right and what's wrong, and can stand the thought that there is no higher being looking out for them. They don't like to try and understand other peoples views because they like the idea that there is only one and ultimate truth (God's word); the necessity of having to depend on one's self is frightening, I understand that, but I'm not afraid (in fact, I find that to take responsability for my actions, learn and then do my best to improve myself is very empowering) and that's why I don't believe in God.

*sigh* I'm being a prick for a reason. Think of it this way, if you could convert me to being a Buddist then couldn't another person convert me into a Muslim? And if I had any interest in changing my religion I would have done so by myself and if I wanted your help I would have asked for it. I find it very selfish and even moronic when anybody tries to force his/her personal beliefs on other people.

Most of theist's arguments are based on faith and atheist's arguments on theoretical science. None of them win, it's the individual that has to choose which should he/she believe in. One reason I respect atheists more than theists is because atheism (just like agnosticism or any other non-religion) promotes free-thought while theism promotes a form of slavery.

Hum. While I make no attempt to stand up for organised religion, I do think you're making unfair attributations, just like the whole Hitler thing. Would you like me to say the KGB was a branch of Atheism? Would you like me to suggest that through Pirates, all those who follow Pastafarianism are implicitly responsible for the looting and pillaging of nations across the globe? Or what about the Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbour; after all, they believed in no god too!

Just because religion is used as an excuse doesn't mean everyone who holds that religion is directly linked to things other people have done using it. That's like saying Internet users are either evil or stupid because some people have used it to distribute paedophilic imagery, plot to overthrow governments, threaten the life of a person hundreds of miles away, harass people with pamphlets or abusive and persistent sales pitches, steal private property and engage in enormous-scale deliberate and blind vandalism.

Point taken but paedophillia isnt accepted as a branch of atheism as it isnt a community but the kkk has been accepted by the christian church

So, since there are things that science hasn't explained yet, therefore there must be a god?

No what science hasnt explained yet and is used as a pro-religious argument will just be proved as a natural occurence rather than a supernatural blessing/curse

but the kkk has been accepted by the christian church
No it hasn't.

I challenge you to bring me any statement from the Vatican, Anglican or other official church bodies that states that the Klan is endorsed by Christianity.

I'm sorry, you look like a nice guy but when I read that I couldn't help but whisper in the back of my mind: stupidity, stupidity, stupidity...
*Kamsaki adds yet another one to his tally of people who didn't read the first post properly*

The ideas aren't supposed to be reasonable.
These obvious arguments are adduced for weak souls; but if the inner perception be open, a hundred thousand clear proofs become visible. Thus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the bounty of the spirit, it is necessary to establish external arguments.
Adduced means to cite as proof, by the way. In other words, these arguments are only proof to those who are blind in faith. One must open one's inner perception in order to have convincing explanations for the spiritual; you have to discover these things on your own, since mindless recitiation is fruitless.

Doesn't that seem reasonable? It's basically saying that if you want to be spiritual, you need to take time to internally examine yourself and modify your beliefs, such that they can stand up to argument, and you'll know when you've found truth such that no argument can go unrefuted.

Though I do think perhaps, well intentioned though he may be, even the original poster may have missed this point.

No it hasn't.

I challenge you to bring me any statement from the Vatican, Anglican or other official church bodies that states that the Klan is endorsed by Christianity.

Challenge accepted
This is a statement from a kkk site i went on (i am not a part of have never been a part of and will never be a part of the kkk)

DISCLAIMER:

The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress.

Challenge accepted
This is a statement from a kkk site i went on (i am not a part of have never been a part of and will never be a part of the kkk)

DISCLAIMER:

The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress.
I said statement from an official Church organisation, not from an official KKK organisation or from the United States Supreme Court. That's just the KKK saying that the US Government treats it as a Christian Organisation; not that it is treated thus by Christianity itself. Though, either way, you should post a link to your sources.

Challenge accepted
This is a statement from a kkk site i went on (i am not a part of have never been a part of and will never be a part of the kkk)

DISCLAIMER:

The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress.
I hate to say this, but that doesn't actually mean the KKK are endorsed by anyone but themselves.

Ok, girls and guys, just for fun and serious discussion, I hope, I am posting this from the Baha'i Faith. It is from Abdu'l Baha the son of the Prophet Founder of the Baha'i Faith. Tell me what you think. Agree or disagree? I am not a scientist so I really can't resond from that angle. And I have to leave for a couple three hours around 9 am central us time.

PROOFS AND EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.

I have to stop reading these things....
No, the existance of man is not proof of the existance of a god, nor is the existance of cats, dogs, flies, fluvirusses & other things proof of the existance of god.

Life, in the most primitive form is nothing more then chemical reactions balancing eachother.

The idea that some being created us is circular, assuming you believe this, have you then ever wondered where the creator comes from? Or don't you care about that?

Can i proof that there is no god? No
Can you prove there is a god? No
Can i support/explain the evolution of the species? Yes
Can you support/explain Inteligent design? No

-Snip-
Counter++

You know, proof of God is easy to obtain. Stand up and swing your leg. Now sit back down. You have just initiated several million chemical reactions, anyone of which went smoothly. If just one of those reactions say, used more energy than usual, your kneecap could have been blown off.(thats not stretching the imagination. look at the chemicals used in your body, then look at homemade bomb ingredients lists.) Further, we have no proof of evolution either. Can you show me evidence of our evolutionary past? No, you can't. It's been proved that we did not come from the neaderthals'.

Take a look at your average house/street cat, then take a look at a lion, both are cats, both can be traced back through fossile proof to come from the same original animal (that itself descended from another animal etc etc).

Why is it so hard to believe the same happened with mankind?

Basicly, trying to argue against evolution is just plain stupid. Evolution can be proven with factual evidence, your statement can't

That's ok. You look for proof in the beakers of science and don't find it. I look for proof in my heart and find proof in every object.

Odd that, i find plenty of proof in science :cool:

I have to stop reading these things....
No, the existance of man is not proof of the existance of a god, nor is the existance of cats, dogs, flies, fluvirusses & other things proof of the existance of god.

Life, in the most primitive form is nothing more then chemical reactions balancing eachother.

The idea that some being created us is circular, assuming you believe this, have you then ever wondered where the creator comes from? Or don't you care about that?

Can i proof that there is no god? No
Can you prove there is a god? No
Can i support/explain the evolution of the species? Yes
Can you support/explain Inteligent design? No

Just so you understand that Abdu'l Baha shared the statement Proof of God in about 1912 so it is not about intelligent design as is so widely discussed today. Not to say it is opposed to intelligent design. He also made statements supportive of evolution.

So if the creator/created argument is circular so is evolution circular because it doesn't answer fully where we came from. The material that somehow came into close enough proximity in the right combination heat, light, chemical etc had to come from somewhere. Evolution does not answer that question fully.

I do know that people feel so strongly about the topic that they are quick to insult each other.

I do know that people feel so strongly about the topic that they are quick to insult each other.

Well, I've been quite civil, as you initially noticed.

What I find amusing is that you posted as a Bahai, and not as a Christian - and some of the more impolite people seem to have assumed that you were a Christian.

As for me, I require no proof. That's what faith is all about.

Okay, I retract that statement. I wasn't thinking. For a CHRISTIAN vs. atheist science(trying to prove God does not exist), faith beats THAT every time. There's always a question that can counter their answers.

That blade cuts both ways

*Kamsaki adds yet another one to his tally of people who didn't read the first post properly*

The ideas aren't supposed to be reasonable.

Adduced means to cite as proof, by the way. In other words, these arguments are only proof to those who are blind in faith. One must open one's inner perception in order to have convincing explanations for the spiritual; you have to discover these things on your own, since mindless recitiation is fruitless.

Doesn't that seem reasonable? It's basically saying that if you want to be spiritual, you need to take time to internally examine yourself and modify your beliefs, such that they can stand up to argument, and you'll know when you've found truth such that no argument can go unrefuted.

[QUOTE]Though I do think perhaps, well intentioned though he may be, even the original poster may have missed this point.

No, I didn't miss the point. You certainly can explain it much better than I.

Just so you understand that Abdu'l Baha shared the statement Proof of God in about 1912 so it is not about intelligent design as is so widely discussed today. Not to say it is opposed to intelligent design. He also made statements supportive of evolution.

So if the creator/created argument is circular so is evolution circular because it doesn't answer fully where we came from. The material that somehow came into close enough proximity in the right combination heat, light, chemical etc had to come from somewhere. Evolution does not answer that question fully.

I do know that people feel so strongly about the topic that they are quick to insult each other.
You're basically saying "That plane over there is a wonderful plane". So someone points out the wings have fallen out, the engine was last seen sleeping on the floor of a bar in Sydney, and that the local remains are actually on fire.

So you respond "Well if you think that makes it a bad plane, then so is your car! Nah-nah!". And at this point, it's quite obvious that pointing out that it's a car, not a plane, probably won't matter a whole lot...

You can't compare Godidit with the theories about evolution. Evo describes the ways in which living organisms evolve. What brought living organisms about, or the world they live on, is not at all related to that set of theories.

Well, I've been quite civil, as you initially noticed.

What I find amusing is that you posted as a Bahai, and not as a Christian - and some of the more impolite people seem to have assumed that you were a Christian.

As for me, I require no proof. That's what faith is all about.

I posted as a Baha'i because I am Baha'i. And that they assumed I am Christian is not surpising, people do tend to jump to conclusion--dont' they.

I think people find their proof in different ways and different places.

I posted as a Baha'i because I am Baha'i. And that they assumed I am Christian is not surpising, people do tend to jump to conclusion--dont' they.

I think people find their proof in different ways and different places.
I know I've asked before, but I couldn't find your answer. What question(s) was it you could only find the answer to in your faith?

Edit: Just ignore me if you don't want to answer. I realize it might be very personal.

You're basically saying "That plane over there is a wonderful plane". So someone points out the wings have fallen out, the engine was last seen sleeping on the floor of a bar in Sydney, and that the local remains are actually on fire.

So you respond "Well if you think that makes it a bad plane, then so is your car! Nah-nah!". And at this point, it's quite obvious that pointing out that it's a car, not a plane, probably won't matter a whole lot...

You can't compare Godidit with the theories about evolution. Evo describes the ways in which living organisms evolve. What brought living organisms about, or the world they live on, is not at all related to that set of theories.

No, I think you are reading too much into my response. All I am really saying is that until the scientists prove where life started, how it started, where the material came from there will be those who say it was a Higher Power. Also, I am saying that the spiritual part of the human condition working with the material part of the human are both necessary.

As it stands today the two parts seem to only want to fight. The world is big enough for each group.

Okay, but that's not my point. That is a bad counter, but when people say "There is no God!" What about cases when people were crippled and prayed to God every night, and were able to walk again? What about the enexplainable voice in you head that gives people enough strength to walk out of the burning building when there seemed to be no hope? There's mysteries that can't be solved with this blabbering of science and gases and NO! Reliable people have SEEN actual God-related things! I'm not saying every scientist is going to Hell! There IS some things that the Bible is wrong about, like Adam & Eve. I believe in evolution, but science just can't explain everything. Also, if you have NO religion whatsoever, and SOME religion is right, you're automatically screwed to whatever Hell that religion has.

I'll take my chances with that hell thingie, besides, i like BBQ's.
As for those miraculous healings etc, it's been proven that state of mind directly affects your health, if you believe you're ill, you *will* get ill, if you believe you can heal, you will heal faster (if healing is possible offcourse, not even a strong mind can overcome deadly deseases, but it helps)

Everything can be solved & explained, given enough proof (alot of those misteries are anecdotal) & time. Even the origins of space, time and life.

Here's a wild theory for you, in the beginning there was nothing, try to imagine this, this implies there is no open space, no closed space, no vacuum.... nothing whatsover, what if, nothingness is a form of energy, and there's a link between matter & energy.... well, you get what i mean right? ;)
So if you believe God created everything, well, in this theory god was nothingness, hence, didn't exist in the first place.

HA!

I know I've asked before, but I couldn't find your answer. What question(s) was it you could only find the answer to in your faith?

Edit: Just ignore me if you don't want to answer. I realize it might be very personal.

I don't remember you asking before, so I will do my best to answer now. What I found in the Teaching of Baha'u'llah is the anwers to why the world/and myself is going through so much turmoil. I began to understand the spiritual nature of the human condition. I understood that the differences that were tearing us apart were not put there by God, but by humanities refusal to accept that all people were really one people, a fact that science proves. When I first found the message of Baha'u'llah it was like a light went on and everything that seemed impossible was now possible. There is so much more that I could share, but this is probably not the right place. I have a Daily Meditation thread where you can ask more if you want. Or, send a telegram to me at my nation site.

That's not what I mean! Perhaps I should list what I mean by these posts:
-God is goodBullshit, if he were good there would be no misery in the world, hell, he would never have created humans in the first place. If he created us he did it for entertainment value, not for goodness
-God exists.Nah ;)
-You can easily shoot holes in aethiest science (the same with Christainity)Really? Care to shoot some holes?
-If you're an aethiest, I'm pretty sure you will get SOME sort of punishment (pergutory or Hell)Yaay! Hurray for me!
-As long as your religion does not restrict human rights, ect., and you practice it, you can get into Heaven.I think i'll pass, i'll just cease to be & get cremated
-Evolution existsYep
-The Big bang happenedActually, they're still working on that one ;)
-God started the 2 things started right above this.Nope, nothingness did (see other post :P
-A women should have a right to an abortion(if I were a woman, and pregnant, I PERSONALLY would not get one)Agreed
-You can have your beliefs, and I can have mineAgreed
-You can express your beliefs, and so can IAgreed
-I can shoot holes through your beliefs, and so can you.It's fun! ;)
- You CANNOT disrespect my beliefs, or be sarcastic and make fun of them. Nor will Iowww :P

Understand now?:D

Yep

Point taken but paedophillia isnt accepted as a branch of atheism as it isnt a community but the kkk has been accepted by the christian church


yes. christians support the linching of minorities.... wow...just wow. just because a hand full of bible thumping racists decide to burn a cross and hang blacks doesnt mean that the religion supports them.

No, I think you are reading too much into my response. All I am really saying is that until the scientists prove where life started, how it started, where the material came from, there will be those who say it was a Higher Power. Also, I am saying that the spiritual part of the human condition working with the material part of the human are both necessary.
Sure there will. However, you posted a topic about the proof of God.
In such a debate, it's hard for people inclined towards reasonable evidence, to accept spiritual arguments. If we somehow managed to zap working televisions back to the stoneage, I'm sure stoneage people would have all manner of fancyful explanations for how those things works & what their purpose is.
We would know those explanations were nothing but feel-good ideas explaining the unknowable, however. And I doubt 21st century people would take up stoneage beliefs about televisions, since we know better.

It's not much different when people rejects current knowledge because it doesn't fit with their feel-good explanations for the stuff we lack knowledge about.

Because essentially God isn't any more credible that the idea that 3 neongreen gnomes weaved the universe, the natural forces & everything else, from little strands of their neongreen beards. If you can see proof of God in every blade of grass etc, then surely the same proof is there for those 3 little gnomes, right?
As it stands today the two parts seem to only want to fight. The world is big enough for each group.
Don't get all the above wrong. I have nothing against religious people, regardless of what their religion is. I only have a problem with people who dismiss our current knowledge in favour of feel-good explanations. There's no need to do it. Plenty of Christians, Muslims & so on, have no problem combining & refining their ideas in accordance with the things we know & learn about the cosmos.

And I completely agree there's no need to fight about these things. However, I don't think it's in the best interest of our species to accept when vast numbers of people reject the things we've learned about ourselves & our world, and go on a rampage against these things, in a bid to make others ignorant so they can 'convert' them.

Point taken but paedophillia isnt accepted as a branch of atheism as it isnt a community but the kkk has been accepted by the christian church

My response is really off topic, but I think I need to say this to defend Christianity. The KKK has not been accepted by the Christian Church because there really is not a Christian Church; there are many thousands of Christian churches that believe a very wide variety of sometimes very different beliefs.

This is, in large part, why Christianity has lost almost all of its ability to bring about positive change in society at large.

I don't remember you asking before, so I will do my best to answer now. What I found in the Teaching of Baha'u'llah is the anwers to why the world/and myself is going through so much turmoil. I began to understand the spiritual nature of the human condition. I understood that the differences that were tearing us apart were not put there by God, but by humanities refusal to accept that all people were really one people, a fact that science proves. When I first found the message of Baha'u'llah it was like a light went on and everything that seemed impossible was now possible. There is so much more that I could share, but this is probably not the right place. I have a Daily Meditation thread where you can ask more if you want. Or, send a telegram to me at my nation site.
Thanks for answering. I too secretly snicker when people rant about 'races' - I suppose it's not much different than the evo-crea stuff going around these days. It's sad people didn't pay more attention in school.

I have to ask though. Did finding the light make you more or less interested in things like social sciences, politics, economy & the like? - Assuming it affected your need to learn & understand our societies & problems at all.

I find it incredible that we have Physical Constants by coincedence. Doesn't it make more sense to attribute our perfect Universe to a Creator? How can this be merely coincedence?

I find it incredible that we have Physical Constants by coincedence. Doesn't it make more sense to attribute our perfect Universe to a Creator? How can this be merely coincedence?
Douglas Adams (PBUH) springs to mind.

Did you ever hear his little analogy with the puddle?

Sure there will. However, you posted a topic about the proof of God.
In such a debate, it's hard for people inclined towards reasonable evidence, to accept spiritual arguments. If we somehow managed to zap working televisions back to the stoneage, I'm sure stoneage people would have all manner of fancyful explanations for how those things works & what their purpose is.
We would know those explanations were nothing but feel-good ideas explaining the unknowable, however. And I doubt 21st century people would take up stoneage beliefs about televisions, since we know better.

It's not much different when people rejects current knowledge because it doesn't fit with their feel-good explanations for the stuff we lack knowledge about.

Because essentially God isn't any more credible that the idea that 3 neongreen gnomes weaved the universe, the natural forces & everything else, from little strands of their neongreen beards. If you can see proof of God in every blade of grass etc, then surely the same proof is there for those 3 little gnomes, right?

Don't get all the above wrong. I have nothing against religious people, regardless of what their religion is. I only have a problem with people who dismiss our current knowledge in favour of feel-good explanations. There's no need to do it. Plenty of Christians, Muslims & so on, have no problem combining & refining their ideas in accordance with the things we know & learn about the cosmos.

And I completely agree there's no need to fight about these things. However, I don't think it's in the best interest of our species to accept when vast numbers of people reject the things we've learned about ourselves & our world, and go on a rampage against these things, in a bid to make others ignorant so they can 'convert' them.

The statement by Abdu'l Baha was really just a starting point and not meant to be a complete answer. As Deep Kimchi pointed out much better than I ever could the words of Abdu's Baha were meant to point out that if the strict materialist forget about the spirtual nature of humanity--humanity will lose.
Wich I could stay and talk some more, but I gotta go.

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD

The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.

Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun Sun Image compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.


The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

THE NEXT STEP

We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way.

Source:http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Thanks for answering. I too secretly snicker when people rant about 'races' - I suppose it's not much different than the evo-crea stuff going around these days. It's sad people didn't pay more attention in school.

I have to ask though. Did finding the light make you more or less interested in things like social sciences, politics, economy & the like? - Assuming it affected your need to learn & understand our societies & problems at all.

Finding the light:D that is kinda funny. It opened my eyes. It offered new ways of looking at age old problems. It made science sing with a new voice. Everything was different, new, fresh, alive, possible. It was a new day. There is so much more, so much more.

Douglas Adams (PBUH) springs to mind.

Did you ever hear his little analogy with the puddle?
Enlighten me.

THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.Not correct. It might be what some atheists believe, but atheism isn't a set of beliefs like a religion is it. It's the lack of belief in any personificated Gods. Claiming it's more than that is simply demonstrating lack of knowledge.The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!I am an atheist. Yet the above doesn't contradict any 'beliefs' I hold. On the contrary, it's exactly what I would have explained, had I been asked to.

No points for you on this one.A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun Sun Image compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!This is just displaying lack of knowledge. Turn on a lighter. Eventually it runs out of gas, right? So where has the gass gone? It's been converted to heat, that's where it's gone.

The heat-death scenario - which seems most likely these days - doesn't mean that the universe have 'run out'. It just meanst that 'stuff' has been so thinly dispersed over time, that the things that happens when 'stuff' is compressed (like a star), doesn't happen anymore. It in no way means that stuff magically vanished.

Again, the assumption that the universe is static has fuck-all to do with atheism. I've certainly never met one who believed that, nor do I myself. Historically speaking, the notion that the universe is static, is a strictly religious one.

Again, no point for the bible thumper.


A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.The religious assumption that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, are wrong. If the universe collapses & expands, it does so. If not, it doesn't. There's no loss of matter/energy involved. Nor will the universe magically loose it's content if it just keeps on expanding forever. Matter & energy will simply be more thinly dispersed. But I already addressed this above.

Bible thumper -1, science cries...THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.There's no atheist claim that matter/energy is eternal. That's purely a scientific theory. Science & atheism are not inherrently related.

Also, talking about first causes is pure speculation. Science doesn't have any theories about it. The Lord of The Rings says the Valar & such created Middle Earth. Since we aparently know that books written by men are infallible & shit, why shouldn't we believe the Valar created our universe? - They created another one, so obviously we know they're able.

Noone (outside religious circles) claims matter came from nothing. Bible thumpers claim a sentient entity created matter, and that the sentient thingy has always been.

If that sentient thingy has always been, isn't it even more credible that matter - which we possitively know is real, as we're made of it - is eternal? According to all observation, it looks like matter/energy IS eternal. No spuntanious creation here, it was just always there.

Why is it so incredibly hard for a Christian to believe that a particle always existed, when they have no problem imagining a sentient entity always existed?

Besides, if you assume Godidit, then it begs a whole fuckload of new questions, such as how, why, when, where did God come from, what's it made of... Blah.THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.Riiight... I don't even know what to say to that shit. The entire argument here is "I believe an all-powerful dude created me, 'cos it's cooler than just being a coencidence".
Skrew reason, I wanna be cool too! Lookit me mum! The Stargoat made me frum a pile o' shite.THE NEXT STEP

We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way.We have seen nothing but faulty assumptions, bad science & desperate attempts at defamation. In the next issue, we'll show you how to eat shit as well as spew it!

*Sigh*

Back to school kid.

If that sentient thingy has always been, isn't it even more credible that matter - which we possitively know is real, as we're made of it - is eternal? According to all observation, it looks like matter/energy IS eternal. No spuntanious creation here, it was just always there.

Why is it so incredibly hard for a Christian to believe that a particle always existed, when they have no problem imagining a sentient entity always existed?
Ooh, as a little aside, that's an oft' questionable observation. Quantum mechanics demonstrates ways in which quarks seem to leap in and out of existence on a near constant basis, and how the only way it's actually feasibly possible to define a specific particle's existence is in terms of probability.

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD

The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.

Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun Sun Image compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.


The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

THE NEXT STEP

We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way.

Source:http://www.doesgodexist.org/

hmm lets give this a review

THE BEGINNING
riddle me this? if particles and crap wernt created and God created them, how come one day god was walking along and was like "oh im going to make stuff today" where did he/she come from? if particles cant just be there, then how can god? i dont see god, yet i dont see particles...yet theres proof of this science and nothing on god. maybe particles made god? eh? ever think of that! lol. this attempt on solving how we started is pointless because theres no way we can determind if god is real or not. now science has a theory on how it started. its called mathamatical coincidence.

THE CAUSE
was the creation caused or not cause? wtf? lol nice play on words its like saying "which is more probable...that a supreime being created us or a bunch of crazy shit happened and we just wound up here". ud make a good lawyer.
"It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem." where'd god come from. there is a logical problem there, oh and u misspelt heathen. you spelt it atheist. crack that whip

THE DESIGN
man u just repeat everything u said two paragraphs ago. the bible does say that eh? but my history book tells me that it was re written after the dark ages to better suit a curropt pope....line of popes....about 300 years worth of popes. u know then Martin Luther got pissed and made his own church to end the corruption. "The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance." and your trying to tell us that a giant from the stars created us....whos the more logical one here? "The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance." really? did god plant that seed in your sisters belly? hmm or is that just anothe rplay on words cause u dont wanna accept you are from your fathers nuts. man 600 million sperm and your the one that made it. "If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God." hmm why would an intelligent god make us so we can rip eachother apart? sitting up there quietly through such sitcoms as the Holocaust, bubonic plauge, george W bush ( lol ), and many other classic events. why would an intelligent god sit and do nothing when we faced the evil of mankind. umm if you have two kids and one of them is fighting with the other one i dont think you sit there and watch. you get in there and help them understand that it is unacceptable. otherwise one just gets beat up and ends up looking up at the parent and asking why they didnt help. so my idea would be god is a neglogent parent. a kid with an ant farm your move sherlock
THE NEXT STEP

"We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way."


hmm we have not seen proof of God's existence. just jabber about what the bible said and tieing athiests in with science so you could kill two bird with one stone. yes a flood of questions did arise...mostly from the first couple sentances of this study. and you didnt really answer any of them. actually id be surprised if you did, but hey your just one person.now look at the last sentance.... did we use common sense? no we didnt. we used the blame game. "oh well they say this happened which it totally didnt cause you know this guy made us for no reason, just for laughs." basically a there wrong were right. i can say will all honesty there are some things science cant solve. but that doesnt mean that just becauase science is scratching their head on one topic that God is there. its like whenever something doesnt make sense, we slide god in there to try and make sense of what we dont know. you know how the sick have been "magically" healed? mathamatical coincidence. some live some die. the strong prevail...ever hear of Charles Darwin? its called natural selection pal. everything on this planet goes through that. plants, animals and even humans. but hey what happened to the Native americans gods? aztecs? greeks? vikings? well its something called conversion. where the strong white europians forced their beliefs on other nations. and the thing that really rips me apart is the christian/muslim comparison. the only real hardcore difference is that jesus for christians was the son of god, and jesus was just a prophet for the muslims. yet this small difference creates a world of problems. (obviously muslims have a much more intracite religion than ive summed up but you get the point). the way i figure (in my books anyway) is that science has proven more miracles to me (and i think to the world) than god. meds, hospitals, transportation, weather predictions, the ability to transport ppl out of say New Orleans. the ability to travel over great distances to assist nations in need. sure science has had its downside as well *cough* nukes *cough* but i think the pros out weigh the cons. and there, ladies and gentlemen, is my god

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct. i believe thermodynamics states that energy is lost in heat due to its transferrel to another state.... its not created or destroed. and you cant use automoblies for example compared to the solar system. the universe is self sufficent where an automobile in tragically flawed (ex gas refils, changing oil etc) so if your comparing it to the solar system i think it would be like this "i bought a car and 900 billion years later i havent even had to change the windshield fluid"

I said statement from an official Church organisation, not from an official KKK organisation or from the United States Supreme Court. That's just the KKK saying that the US Government treats it as a Christian Organisation; not that it is treated thus by Christianity itself. Though, either way, you should post a link to your sources.

ok the kkk turds may have been disowned by the pope etc but who says whos an acceptable branch? What if the leader is unnaceptable?
And a link? if u want to find more out about racist faggots type kkk into google

ok the kkk turds may have been disowned by the pope etc but who says whos an acceptable branch? What if the leader is unnaceptable?
And a link? if u want to find more out about racist faggots type kkk into google
I happen to agree with you on questioning Churches, but unless an organised Christian unit like Vatican council, the Anglican Synod, the Presbyterian forum or some-such comes out publically in support of something, you can't claim that they do. Crazy American Baptists, without an official representative body, are the exception, not the rule.

Now, if you were to persuade America's Baptist pastors to come together and issue a joint statement that the KKK were a valid sect of Christianity, you'd be right. But one Baptist minister spouting bigoted propaganda doesn't represent Christianity any more than some white kid wearing a "STFU Fag Jew Niggas" shirt in the North does for Caucasian Adolescent Males.

They're both just morons. And probably deathbound ones at that.

The battle of Science V.S. religion has been fought for hundreds of years. Both teams got some good shots in, and both teams won a few rounds. But in the end there can only be one victor




http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/Cuppuh-T/EinsteinGod.gif

The battle of Science V.S. religion has been fought for hundreds of years. Both teams got some good shots in, and both teams won a few rounds. But in the end there can only be one victor
1. Your image link is broken.

2. There's no battle of science vs. religion. There are people who refuse to accept reality & loudly attack people wh does accept it, an then there's all the rest.

my new link should be good,

and i guess i should have said "debate" instead of battle. but in all seriousness, i don't think any arguements should will end. I feel that everybody ahs a right to their beliefs, and unless they are enforcing genopcide, or anything like that, we shouldn't interfere. But still, nothing like a religious debate to wake you up in the morning:D

except maybe coffee

The battle of Science V.S. religion has been fought for hundreds of years. Both teams got some good shots in, and both teams won a few rounds. But in the end there can only be one victor




http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/Cuppuh-T/EinsteinGod.gif



classic. absolutely classic

1. Your image link is broken.
It's working now. It got a chuckle out of me. ^^;

There's no war. It's just a few inept terrorist attacks by people who don't get the idea that scientists aren't their enemy. It's like bombing Norway with snowballs. We just shrug it off.

I do know that people feel so strongly about the topic that they are quick to insult each other.
Well, you are trying to force your personal views on everybody else... that would be pretty insulting, don't you think?

It's working now. It got a chuckle out of me. ^^;
Same here :)
There's no war. It's just a few inept terrorist attacks by people who don't get the idea that scientists aren't their enemy. It's like bombing Norway with snowballs. We just shrug it off.
Now that got me laughing out loud :p

They're both just morons. And probably deathbound ones at that.

COULD I GET AN AMEN TO THAT!!

Oh boy, here we go again! First off, let me say that I agree..... I mean disagree..... no wait, I mean agree..... no that's wrong, I mean disagree..... Wait! What was the question again? :p

I'll take my facts (fiction for others), from the Holy Bible written by men, over wikipedia, books on philosophy, evolution and all others imagined that others believe to be fact (fiction for me), that were also written by men. Where's the difference?

Faith or Proof? Fact or fiction? True or false? Right or wrong?..... Whatever floats your boat! I'll stay, remain true and take my chances with GOD. My life is guided and belongs to Him. Good luck to anyone in wasting their time trying to change that.

My life is guided and belongs to Him.
Ok im sure thats just great.
What would it take for your life to belong to me?
A nice holy book? hmm?

Well, you are trying to force your personal views on everybody else... that would be pretty insulting, don't you think?

Excuse me but when and how did I try to force my personal views on anyone. The is NationStates general forum. People put ideas up for people to discuss. People share their point of view. Some people start name calling and call it free speech. I did not force my personal views on anyone.

COULD I GET AN AMEN TO THAT!!
The answer to that is probably no, I'm afraid.

Oh boy, here we go again! First off, let me say that I agree..... I mean disagree..... no wait, I mean agree..... no that's wrong, I mean disagree..... Wait! What was the question again?
Hehe... I know, reading through that does tend to make you wonder just what you're agreeing with when you state your agreement or disagreement.

In fact, that's the whole point of the article. Do you know what you're agreeing with? If not, perhaps you should look into it a bit more.

I'll take my facts (fiction for others), from the Holy Bible written by men, over wikipedia, books on philosophy, evolution and all others imagined that others believe to be fact (fiction for me), that were also written by men. Where's the difference?
Wikipedia is compiled of articles editted by a conglomerate rather than appended by a conglomerate, for one, but that's not the point.

Now, where to begin on the Bible itself... Basically, it's a collection of writings with only one uniform string running throughout; the idea of the God of the people of Israel bringing about some sort of kingdom. All sorts of different interpretations and accounts are included that might refer to it at some point. But that's all they are - human ideas - regardless of their inspiration. And ultimately, it's built towards the end so as to provide you with one interpretation of reported events and deliberately blind you to other interpretations. John's Gospel was a very sneaky addition; it's kept with the witness accounts, but is in fact an opinionated analysis. Paul's letters dominate any attempt to explore around the life of Jesus. And the appendum to Mark?

The Bible as a unified body blurs histories, myths and speculations together into one huge bundle, intent on reaching your conclusion for you. That's the problem with it.

Faith or Proof? Fact or fiction? True or false? Right or wrong?..... Whatever floats your boat! I'll stay, remain true and take my chances with GOD. My life is guided and belongs to Him. Good luck to anyone in wasting their time trying to change that.
Fair enough. But do you really know what God is? I wonder if you've ever questioned exactly who and what this being you claim to worship is, and where you get your ideas from.

Well, saying "There is a God!" is just as offending to atheists as "Black people must be enslaved!" to anti-racists. It's your opinion and there's nothing to be discussed/debated; just like a racist white person can't be convinced that he is not superior to oher races. Like I previously said "most of theist's arguments are based on faith and atheist's arguments on theoretical science"... there is no winner.

Basically, your argument is that man cannot create himself therefore there must be someone who created him. Well, biologist say you're probaby wrong, that man probably evolved from other animals... so who wins? It's the individual's choice.

Well, saying "There is a God!" is just as offending to atheists as "Black people must be enslaved!" to anti-racists.
Bull stating your beliefs as long as they are not directly hurting someone as in "there is a god" is fine it may show complete ignorance but hey you wont hurt anyones feelings.
But you may look like a retard.

Well, saying "There is a God!" is just as offending to atheists as "Black people must be enslaved!" to anti-racists. It's your opinion and there's nothing to be discussed/debated; just like a racist white person can't be convinced that he is not superior to oher races. Like I previously said "most of theist's arguments are based on faith and atheist's arguments on theoretical science"... there is no winner.

Basically, your argument is that man cannot create himself therefore there must be someone who created him. Well, biologist say you're probaby wrong, that man probably evolved from other animals... so who wins? It's the individual's choice.

You said I forced my personal view on people. That is simply false. I offered something up for discussion, nothing more. I did start the tread about evolution, which I believe did happen. So why you are reading so much more into this I am not sure. You seem to be assuming thing about what I believe or don't believe that aren't true. For me this subject is dropped. Let's forget about it.

So why you are reading so much more into this I am not sure. You seem to be assuming thing about what I believe or don't believe that aren't true. For me this subject is dropped. Let's forget about it.

you say that alot...:rolleyes:

As the great men in Slayer wrote "I keep the bible in a pool of blood
So that none of its lies can affect me" thats all i have to say

As the great men in Slayer wrote "I keep the bible in a pool of blood
So that none of its lies can affect me" thats all i have to say

Anybody want to quote a good band?:p

I find it incredible that we have Physical Constants by coincedence. Doesn't it make more sense to attribute our perfect Universe to a Creator? How can this be merely coincedence?
Physical constants are inevitable - without them, the universe couldn't exist. If there was just one Big Bang which created the universe, and all the physical constants fell magically into place immediately, it may be coincidence. But for all we know, there had been trillions of abortive Big Bangs which fizzled out because the physical laws they produced didn't work, and it was inevitable that, in the end, the process would hit upon a viable system.

At the very beginning of the universe, the physical laws as we know them didn't apply - they emerged through the sequence of events which followed the Big Bang, and they emerged because they worked. Any physical law which didn't work simply wouldn't happen, because it couldn't.

The only significant example of conscious intelligent creators we have is ourselves, and yet we are not even remotely close to being able to produce anything as complex or coherent as the universe, and probably never will be. So, with absolutely no evidence to go on, why should we asssume that a process of designed creation could possibly produce a universe with all its physical constants? The assumption seems to me to be the ultimate in arrogant anthropomorphism - applying human characteristics to non-human situations.

Anybody want to quote a good band?:p

The The..."we've forgotten the message and worship the creeds"


but anyway...you can account for anything with infinity

maybe That is "God"

it also needs nicely on to a reply to all those who moan about how shite the world is..."better luck next time"

''For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. ''

What sort of rubbish is that? Even if God DID exist we couln't compare man's weakness to his power because we can't see him. If we believe man to be weak this is in comparision to say, a bear or lion...in any case, if man is weak then why weren't we hunted to extinction by larger predators? Our power lies in mental strength - logic and reasoning....the ability to discover how the world works, not to just say ''God did it'' and sit back in blissful ignorance. Such people are the weakness of man. They stand in the way of progress.

Anybody want to quote a good band?:p


"I am the one Orgasmatron,the outstreched grasping hand.
My image is unlike any,my servants rape the land.
Obsequious and arrogance,clandestine and vain,
Two thousand years of misery,of torture in my name.
Hypocrisy made paramount,
Paranoia, the law.
My name is called religion
Sadistic,sacred,whore.

"I am the one Orgasmatron,the outstreched grasping hand.
My image is unlike any,my servants rape the land.
Obsequious and arrogance,clandestine and vain,
Two thousand years of misery,of torture in my name.
Hypocrisy made paramount,
Paranoia, the law.
My name is called religion
Sadistic,sacred,whore.

And the band being???


Anyways, Goodthoughts, stop being a bitch, and backing down. Everything someone says you need to correct with "Oh, shit, you're right! Well, lets just end it then...."

Just stop saying "I am right"
and say
"You were all right all along. I don't know what the fuck I am talking about..."

I believe it was God who said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"

Or was it "Ich bin ein Geleeschaumgummiring!"

I believe it was God who said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"

Or was it "Ich bin ein Geleeschaumgummiring!"

Really...?

I believe it was God who said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"

Or was it "Ich bin ein Geleeschaumgummiring!"

No that was Rudolf Hess.

And the band being???


Anyways, Goodthoughts, stop being a bitch, and backing down. Everything someone says you need to correct with "Oh, shit, you're right! Well, lets just end it then...."

Just stop saying "I am right"
and say
"You were all right all along. I don't know what the fuck I am talking about..."

No I didn't say he was right. I said he was incorrect about his statements regarding what he said that I said. But this is really off topic and you are just looking for a fight which is not at all what I am interested in.

Wow, you folks are still arguing over this? I missed so much of the debate with, you know, having a life and all.

Hmmmm......allow me to throw in an inflamitory remark.......

Creationism is simply a way for people to escape having to think about stuff. Easy answers to difficult questions. Why ponder such enormous questions like "where did I come from" when a simple answer like "God did it" will do. That way you don't have to tax your brain. Yipee!

I feel better now.

Oh boy, here we go again! First off, let me say that I agree..... I mean disagree..... no wait, I mean agree..... no that's wrong, I mean disagree..... Wait! What was the question again? :p

I'll take my facts (fiction for others), from the Holy Bible written by men, over wikipedia, books on philosophy, evolution and all others imagined that others believe to be fact (fiction for me), that were also written by men. Where's the difference?

Faith or Proof? Fact or fiction? True or false? Right or wrong?..... Whatever floats your boat! I'll stay, remain true and take my chances with GOD. My life is guided and belongs to Him. Good luck to anyone in wasting their time trying to change that.


The difference is that science (in evolution) can be reproduced, shown to happen/have happened, and explained why it happens, while most if not all of the stuff in the bible can not.

Now, call me the anticrist if you must, but the fables in that book (the bible) have no value whatsoever except from a moralistic viewpoint. Face it, the bible was one of those early versions of what we now call laws, religion was a means to control the masses, and in the States & other countries it still is

Bull stating your beliefs as long as they are not directly hurting someone as in "there is a god" is fine it may show complete ignorance but hey you wont hurt anyones feelings.
But you may look like a retard.

True, now screaming from the top of your lungs: YOU MUST REPEND TO GOD OR BURN IN HELL, now that's freakingly annoying.
Thank god (pun intended) we have none of those left in Belgium (or they are hiding)