NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.

God created the world (just a brief point about science here, the Bible doesn’t say how God created the world, just that he did, so science really doesn’t have that much to say about this) and when he did he created it perfectly, it was all good as the Bible says. God then created man and women in his image. Which means (I think, and many agree with me) that we have free will, the ability to choose.
He gave us this because he wanted us to love him, and to love someone there has to be an element of choice about it. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, where their every need was catered for. They had actual paradise.

Meanwhile in Heaven, there was an Angel called Lucifer. He was getting very over ambitious and wanted God's place (IE he wanted to be God) and so him and a group of others attempted to start a rebellion in Heaven. However God being God, they couldn't possibly succeed and so God sent them down into a place called Hell.
Hell is a place for all those who rebel against God, and it is a place without God at all.

Unfortunately, Lucifer and his co-conspirators were not the only ones to rebel against God. Adam and Eve did too. They broke the only and very simple command that God had given them. They had all their needs catered for, and that fruit of that tree was not one of their needs. So they had sinned (Sin is the word for rebellion against God) and because of that sin, we would, unless something would be done about it, all go to hell.

Now God loved us. Loved us more than we could imagine. He did not want any of us to go to hell. He loved us far too much for that. So he had to do something about it. And he did. He sent his own son Jesus into the world, a child born of a virgin birth who lived a sinless life. Sin, for humans ultimately leads to death. Jesus never sinned, yet he died. This doesn’t make any sense, so there must have been another explanation. And there was. He died because of all the
sin of everyone else in the world. He died for everyone who was, is and ever will be.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

A clichéd verse I know, but it is clichéd for a reason. It sums up the Bible very well. Now to believe like it says, people have to do three things.

First, you have to accept you are a sinner. This means that you admit that you've done wrong and in the eyes of God you are far from perfect, and what is more you regret it.

Secondly, as a result of regretting it, you ask God to forgive you for all the sin you've done in your life, and to forgive you through Jesus’ death. If you know you've done wrong, and admitted your wrong, the only option really is to say sorry. So that’s what the second part of this is, saying sorry for the things you've done wrong, and asking God to let Jesus’ death count for you too. Jesus’ death on its own isn't enough. You have to accept it and ask God for it to count for you.

Thirdly, because you've accepted you've sinned, and you've asked God to forgive you for it, you should try not to sin any more and lead the life that Jesus laid out for you. I don’t mean you have to be perfect, no one can do that. Christians are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to doing wrong. The key difference is that we do our best not to and when we do fail, we don’t ignore it. We feel bad about it not only because we've done it but because we have let down God. But the good news is just because we sinned, doesn’t mean God is angry with us. He's upset but he will forgive us as long as we keep trying not to sin, and we are genuinely doing what we can

I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".

I have great issues with any system of belief that depends on a location. Were the faith as you have outlined it, many would leave it in disgust; indeed, under that impression, many do so. However, the core message is not that at all. A real Christian faith doesn't require such dependencies. Hell would not exist and a Christian would maintain their stance nonetheless. Heaven would not ever be approachable by man and yet the Christian would stand by their God.

The focus of the Christian faith is not on the reward or punishment. The acknowledgement of their wish to make amends for the wrongs we have done is the Christian's own reward itself, and the continual effort to mold themselves into a person whom their God can be proud to be represented by is their prime aim; comforted in all things in their relationship with he who is called I Am.

At least, that's my understanding of the ideas of some of the wiser christians I know.

tl;dr

tl;dr

Then why post, goddamit?

The focus of the Christian faith is not on the reward or punishment. The acknowledgement of their wish to make amends for the wrongs we have done is the Christian's own reward itself, and the continual effort to mold themselves into a person whom their God can be proud to be represented by is their prime aim; comforted in all things in their relationship with he who is called I Am.

Actually that's the best way I've ever seen it put.

...the Bible doesn’t say how God created the world, just that he did, so science really doesn’t have that much to say about this).



Unfortunately, the Bible, if it is taken literally, does prescribe a creation story which is pretty much at odds with the intelligence we have gleaned from science; not to mention utterly illogical.

I realise that not all Christians believe in literal creationism but, to the ones that do, everyone else is perfectly justified in calling you stupid.

One thing i never got: How can Garden Eden be actual paradise?

A life without pain, struggle and uncertainty - is boring as f*?k!

You take everything for granted and nothing means anything really.

Not a big fan of the bible - some good stories and a lot of weird ones.

See ya in the pit...

First, you have to accept you are a sinner. This means that you admit that you've done wrong and in the eyes of God you are far from perfect, and what is more you regret it.
I haven't sinned.

I don't believe in the same definition of sin or wrongdoing as you do.

I also don't believe in your god. It hasn't given me a reason to believe in it afterall.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the fall actually came before the creation of the world. Just a minor point.

Personally, I believe the Bible can be summed up as "Love one another as I have loved you." The rest is either history, elaboration on this theme, or utter balls.
For example, the bits that people use to justify homophobia. Jesus wouldn't stand for that. Or calling AIDS a plague of God just like the plagues of Egypt - chances are that Jesus would be working with people with AIDS in Africa or something if he was around today.

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.



I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".


Unfortunately, the arguement IS going to be that God doesn't exist, christians are stoopid, and the bible are t3h 3vil!!!11!. People around here don't care about civilized discussion. NS is full of pricks and barbarians. :)

Then why post, goddamit?

Beats not posting.

Unfortunately, the Bible, if it is taken literally, does prescribe a creation story which is pretty much at odds with the intelligence we have gleaned from science; not to mention utterly illogical.

I realise that not all Christians believe in literal creationism but, to the ones that do, everyone else is perfectly justified in calling you stupid.


and if you take evolution literally, I would be perfectly justified in saying the same about you.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the fall actually came before the creation of the world. Just a minor point.


It's only indirectly reffered to in the Bible, but theologians have argued that the fall occured after creation because on the 6th day God said "It is good" something which he probably wouldn't have said if a bunch of angry demons were running around messing the place up.

and if you take evolution literally, I would be perfectly justified in saying the same about you.


How so? (eager to hear this response)

It's only indirectly reffered to in the Bible, but theologians have argued that the fall occured after creation because on the 6th day God said "It is good" something which he probably wouldn't have said if a bunch of angry demons were running around messing the place up.

Wasn't he saying how his creation of man and animal was good? just like he saw that night and day, plants and fish, earth and heavens were good?

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.



I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".
*gives standing ovation*

*gives standing ovation*

well it doesn't take much to impress you then does it?

*gives standing ovation*

Thank you. Its very nice to be apreciated.

and if you take evolution literally, I would be perfectly justified in saying the same about you.


Firstly, you assume that I do take evolution 'literally', as opposed to just regarding it as the most effective and rigid contemporary explanation of the development of life on earth.

Secondly, no, in all honesty, you wouldn't be.

and if you take evolution literally, I would be perfectly justified in saying the same about you.

Well done, you've just raised a big neon sign above your own head which reads:

"I have a deeply flawed understanding of the concepts involved in the theory of evolution but i'm sure that the multiply translated and incomplete copy of the scribblings of bronze and early iron age tribesmen I have read, offers a better explanation of how new species of organisim come into being"

also, if the bible can be summed up in a few paragraphs, what have you missed out? inconsistencies, blithering and atrocities by any chance?

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.



I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".

Not a bad summary, but I felt like you were just getting warmed up on the topic. I suppose though, it can be hard to know where to take it next. Do you talk about the role of faith, or the point of depending on God to do His will, or how the love of God is to be the point of every motive in our ordinary lives, or how the kingdom of God (or what the kingdom is) has a small beginning and ends up completely dominating our lives, and how the result of such a transformation is the fruits of gentleness, meekness, peace, joy, and patience, etc. But I'll have to admit, I'm still not sure of the best way to present Christianity to folks on NS. So many of them would reject Christ, even if he came to their house.

A life without pain, struggle and uncertainty - is boring as f*?k!

You take everything for granted and nothing means anything really.


Spoken like a true Buddhist.

*wildly applauds*

Well done, you've just raised a big neon sign above your own head which reads:

"I have a deeply flawed understanding of the concepts involved in the theory of evolution but i'm sure that the multiply translated and incomplete copy of the scribblings of bronze and early iron age tribesmen I have read, offers a better explanation of how new species of organisim come into being"

also, if the bible can be summed up in a few paragraphs, what have you missed out? inconsistencies, blithering and atrocities by any chance?

And what you have done is raised a similar sign which reads, ''I have no understanding of the Bible or of Christianity and I am convinced that whatever it is about, the opinions of a few modern 'experts', i.e. scientists, is certain to have more understanding of the universe than the wisdom of the ages.''

What if your beloved 'evolution' can be summed up in just a few paragraphs? What does that do with all the inconsistencies there?

You might as well stop being so cutting about Christianity. It's probably a lot more intelligent than you think.

And what you have done is raised a similar sign which reads, ''I have no understanding of the Bible or of Christianity and I am convinced that whatever it is about, the opinions of a few modern 'experts', i.e. scientists, is certain to have more understanding of the universe than the wisdom of the ages.''


Don't you know anything at all about where the Bible came from? Wisdom of the Ages? FFS. More like Wisdom of the People too Ignorant to Understand Weather Systems.



What if your beloved 'evolution' can be summed up in just a few paragraphs? What does that do with all the inconsistencies there?


Erm, re-read the post. I think you've got a bit confused here.



You might as well stop being so cutting about Christianity. It's probably a lot more intelligent than you think.


Way to embarrass yourself.

the thing with being rational is that you are obliged to accept the rational conclusion. If I ever encountered what i believed to be a manifestation of the divine, and/or observed miracles for which I could find no natural explanation I would be forced to admit the possibility of the supernatural, but that doesn't meen that I would stop looking for a rational and natural explanation.

I feel that the existence of a deity, as described in the christian bible is completely unnecessary for the functioning of the universe. The false dichotomy so often relied upon by Christians seems to be that if science fails to provide a complete answer, the default correct assumption is that their god is responsible.

Any attempt to argue against the existence of god is futile because of the impossibility of proving a negative. What I want to know is why is the burden of proof on the unbeliever? Please provide some tangible evidence from outside scripture for the existence of God and I will immediately become a Theist and renounce my disbelief in deities. Getting me to believe in the validity of the bible and the Christian god would be much harder.

It's only indirectly reffered to in the Bible, but theologians have argued that the fall occured after creation because on the 6th day God said "It is good" something which he probably wouldn't have said if a bunch of angry demons were running around messing the place up.

Except, of course, that Lilith was alleged to be the first bride of Adam, and she was created AFTER the creation of the world... she is also supposed to be the mother of the 'Lilim', a class of demons.

Thus, at least SOME of the 'demons' have to have been on the earth AFTER the creation of the earth. (Allegedly, the Lilim steal human babies - which would reinforce a post-creation, and even post-Fall existence).

One thing i never got: How can Garden Eden be actual paradise?

A life without pain, struggle and uncertainty - is boring as f*?k!

You take everything for granted and nothing means anything really.

Not a big fan of the bible - some good stories and a lot of weird ones.

See ya in the pit...

I suppose It's like lying in bed, after a long sleep: you feel peaceful and are reluctant to do anything. Oh wait, sloth is a sin, right?

Well, I'm off back to bed!

What if your beloved 'evolution' can be summed up in just a few paragraphs? What does that do with all the inconsistencies there?



I think you'll find that it can be summed up in a few paragraphs. something along the lines of

"descent with modification coupled with natural selection of traits giving a reproductive advantage."

is a reasonable effort for the thirty seconds i've been sat here, but probably not watertight.

most of the "inconsistencies" in evolution stem from misunderstanding of the theory or willful misinterpretation by people seeking to discredit it. anything remaining does little to detract from the fact that its a much better and simpler explanation that "the sky god willed it".

the thing with being rational is that you are obliged to accept the rational conclusion. If I ever encountered what i believed to be a manifestation of the divine, and/or observed miracles for which I could find no natural explanation I would be forced to admit the possibility of the supernatural, but that doesn't meen that I would stop looking for a rational and natural explanation.

Fine. Do that. I probably would too.



I feel that the existence of a deity, as described in the christian bible is completely unnecessary for the functioning of the universe. The false dichotomy so often relied upon by Christians seems to be that if science fails to provide a complete answer, the default correct assumption is that their god is responsible.

The thing is that most people (that I know) who are religious do not do so because they want to find a way to explain a functioning universe. Rather, it's either because their parents raised them to be religious, or they had something of a personal experience of God, or both. It is from the religious view point by which the claim comes that having a God in the universe is more rational than not. But this is a subjective claim. The best rational in the world is no better than the assumptions upon which it is based. And the existence or non-existence of God is currently the risk every rational thinker has to take.


Any attempt to argue against the existence of god is futile because of the impossibility of proving a negative. What I want to know is why is the burden of proof on the unbeliever? Please provide some tangible evidence from outside scripture for the existence of God and I will immediately become a Theist and renounce my disbelief in deities. Getting me to believe in the validity of the bible and the Christian god would be much harder.

You are right in saying that neither side of the argument has the right to lump the other with the burden of proof.

I find it quite interesting that you are willing to believe in God providing you are supplied with adequate proof. What sort of proof would you be looking for, exactly? What would be enough to 'convert' you?

I am an agnostic, tilting towards atheism, but I believe that if the Christian-style God exists, the following must be true, regardless of the Bible:

1. Salvation depends on being a good person and acting with the right intentions, no matter what the result. I don't believe that we should have to accept Jesus as our saviour, because what if you were raised without knowledge of Christianity or if it was constantly portrayed in a bad light? You would be a good person and God would realise that and save you.

2. You will not get saved simply by acknowledging your faith and taking part in worship or ceremonies; you will have to actively do what you believe is right. If God truly loves us all then he will be more impressed by people who spend their life doing acts of generosity and goodwill than people who spend all their life praying, and showing how much they love God, but not other people.

3. Repentance must be done genuinely because you are sorry and are determined to change, not because you fear punishment if you don't. Againg if God exists he will know your reasons for repentance and act accordingly.

These principles (though I may have mised a few) are based on the understanding that this God is good and caring, omniscient and extremely powerful.

I think you'll find that it can be summed up in a few paragraphs. something along the lines of

"descent with modification coupled with natural selection of traits giving a reproductive advantage."

is a reasonable effort for the thirty seconds i've been sat here, but probably not watertight.

most of the "inconsistencies" in evolution stem from misunderstanding of the theory or willful misinterpretation by people seeking to discredit it. anything remaining does little to detract from the fact that its a much better and simpler explanation that "the sky god willed it".

That you, as a rational thinker, might find it a better explanation--that I can understand, but that does not mean that a religious person, who is also a rational thinker, might find that 'God willed it' is a far better explanation for him.

Are you in a position to judge which is the more rational position?

At any rate, your summary of evolution is not, in fact, that which any religious person I know would have any problem with. Their argument would probably go along the lines of saying that your summary of evolution is fine, but the assumption that this evolution that you have descrived has produced man from some very basic life form is not that rational.

You are right in saying that neither side of the argument has the right to lump the other with the burden of proof.


That's not what was said.

And the burden of proof is on the believer, because in the absense of evidence we must accept the null hypothesis.

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.



I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".
i found it rather perfunctory. there was no explanation of the link between the garden of eden and US. is it a metaphor showing that we all sin or is it a literal condemnation from the beginning of time based on the action of 2 naive just-created people who didnt even understand good and bad.

"meanwhile" implies that the rebellion of the angels was happening at the same time as the garden of eden.

the whole christ story needs to be explained better. it makes no sense that god should have to make the sacrifice if people are the ones who did wrong. (or that a sacrifice should be necessary at all) it makes no sense that god damned 4000 (or is it 6000?) years worth of people to eternal torment THEN remembered that he could fix it by sending his "son" to die.

is this christ story a metaphor like the garden of eden was or are we suddenly to take it literally. and just what wrongdoings count as sins? do only the ones mentioned in the bible count or do all the sins mentioned by all religions count? what about that long list from the old testament? did god decide that he made a mistake with that list or are we to follow those rules too?

the sort of revelation I would require to convert me would be pretty spectacular, voices from the burning bush etc. And to be honest i'd still be checking for wires. :)

why is saying that descent with modification and selection acceptable, but inadequate to produce complex life forms. With a secular scientific veiwpoint we aren't constrained to fitting all of this gradual change into under 10000 years. There is a vast depth of time to work with and the cumulative effect of untold billions of tiny alterations each having an almost imperceptable advantage to the organism in its environment at the time is a perfectly plausible explanation for the development of higher vertebrates from very simple organisms. it also helpfully accounts for many observable instances of "bad design" in nature, with vestigal limbs in pythons, the fagility of the human skull and many others being much harder to reconcile with the existence of a mystical and infallible creator.

God created the world (just a brief point about science here, the Bible doesn’t say how God created the world, just that he did, so science really doesn’t have that much to say about this) and when he did he created it perfectly, it was all good as the Bible says.

That is not what 'the Bible' says - that is just how you interpret it. This is the problem with only ever having read a translation - which is true of MOST Christians - they have no diea what is in the Hebrew or Greek.

God says his work is 'good', by which he means something closer to 'accurate'. You are imposing your OWN ideas on scripture.


God then created man and women in his image. Which means (I think, and many agree with me) that we have free will, the ability to choose.


Again - your own idea of what it means. You can't have free will without any kind of knowledge. A train has only a track it can follow, it doesn't get to 'choose' anything. If humans know no alternatives, they have no 'free will'.


He gave us this because he wanted us to love him, and to love someone there has to be an element of choice about it.


Again - you are imposing what you want on the story. I don't see any reason to assume 'love' MUST have an element of 'choice'. I also don't see any justification for the idea that god gave us free will because he 'loves us'.


Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, where their every need was catered for. They had actual paradise.


Humans are complex creatures. Our needs cannot all be met, just by an abundance of food, and a lack of predators.... which, if you believe the creation story to be literal, means god made a flawed creation.


Meanwhile in Heaven, there was an Angel called Lucifer.


Not scriptural.


He was getting very over ambitious and wanted God's place (IE he wanted to be God) and so him and a group of others attempted to start a rebellion in Heaven.


Again - not scriptural.


However God being God, they couldn't possibly succeed and so God sent them down into a place called Hell.


Yet again - not scriptural.


Hell is a place for all those who rebel against God, and it is a place without God at all.

Unfortunately, Lucifer and his co-conspirators were not the only ones to rebel against God. Adam and Eve did too. They broke the only and very simple command that God had given them. They had all their needs catered for, and that fruit of that tree was not one of their needs. So they had sinned (Sin is the word for rebellion against God) and because of that sin, we would, unless something would be done about it, all go to hell.


Actually - the 'test' was one they could not pass. If god had wanted them to pass the test, he would have placed that tree somewhere outside the garden. If god had wanted them to pass that test, he would have warned them that a serpent could talk... or that there was a single other entity that had intelligence... or that there was a concept called 'lying'.

As it is - when the serpent talks - if you look carefully, the serpent does not lie. Thus - it could easily be assumed to be the voice of god speaking. Adam and Eve are reputedly punished because god refuses to let them know there is a possibility they can be tricked.

That's not free will, that's betrayal.


Now God loved us. Loved us more than we could imagine. He did not want any of us to go to hell.


More speculation. If god 'did not want any of us to go to hell' there is no 'rulebook' that says god MUST create such a place.


He loved us far too much for that. So he had to do something about it. And he did. He sent his own son Jesus into the world, a child born of a virgin birth who lived a sinless life.


The idea of the virgin birth has nothing to do with the 'prophecy' of Messiah. Not only is the passage it refers to NOT a Messianic prophecy, but it also doesn't mention 'virgin' birth.


Sin, for humans ultimately leads to death. Jesus never sinned, yet he died.


Maybe Jesus DID sin, and it just isn't recorded. Again - more speculation.

When Jesus entered the temple, he embodied wrath - which is one of the 'seven deadly sins'. So - not only DID Jesus sin, but it IS recorded.


This doesn’t make any sense, so there must have been another explanation. And there was. He died because of all the sin of everyone else in the world. He died for everyone who was, is and ever will be.


How does THAT explanation make any more 'sense'?

It does - because you wish it to.

If you look at the Old Testament - god does not allow for sins to be absolved or forgivev BEFORE they are carried out. Thus - the assertion that Jesus could die for ME, 2000 years later, in not consistent with the god of the Old Testament.

And, scripture says that god is changeless - so he can't have 'changed'... especially on so important an issue.


"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16


And who was John? Someone who we should accept as a valid witness on the words and history of Jesus?


A clichéd verse I know, but it is clichéd for a reason. It sums up the Bible very well. Now to believe like it says, people have to do three things.


Again - this is your impression. The fact that there are so many denominations of this one 'faith' implies that it cannot be so easily resolved what the 'things' are we must do.


First, you have to accept you are a sinner. This means that you admit that you've done wrong and in the eyes of God you are far from perfect, and what is more you regret it.

Secondly, as a result of regretting it, you ask God to forgive you for all the sin you've done in your life, and to forgive you through Jesus’ death. If you know you've done wrong, and admitted your wrong, the only option really is to say sorry. So that’s what the second part of this is, saying sorry for the things you've done wrong, and asking God to let Jesus’ death count for you too. Jesus’ death on its own isn't enough. You have to accept it and ask God for it to count for you.


Again - the idea that a sin offering can be presented BEFORE you sin, is inconsistent with the god we know from the Old Testament. Also - the idea that Jesus offered a salvation ONLY to those that 'believed in him' is illogical. Either the sin offering is good, or it is not.


Thirdly, because you've accepted you've sinned, and you've asked God to forgive you for it, you should try not to sin any more and lead the life that Jesus laid out for you.


Jesus did not lay out a plan for you, unless you are Jewish. Carefully re-read your scripture... see who Jesus preached to. See who he told the apostles they were NOT to preach to. He really is quite clear about it.

Indeed - he compares the 'non-believer' Jews to gentiles, as the lowest of the irredeemable.


I don’t mean you have to be perfect, no one can do that.


Opinion differs, even in scripture. Job is described as 'without sin'.


Christians are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to doing wrong.


Worse - if you think about it. They claim that the Holy Spirit influences them. Thus - a Christian that sins is in direct rebellion.


The key difference is that we do our best not to and when we do fail, we don’t ignore it. We feel bad about it not only because we've done it but because we have let down God. But the good news is just because we sinned, doesn’t mean God is angry with us. He's upset but he will forgive us as long as we keep trying not to sin, and we are genuinely doing what we can

You have to tell yourself that, I know. It's a cheerful idea of what god might be like - but it just isn't consistent with the god that the Old testament presents. The two ideas are just irreconcilable.

The thing is that most people (that I know) who are religious do not do so because they want to find a way to explain a functioning universe. Rather, it's either because their parents raised them to be religious, or they had something of a personal experience of God, or both.


You admit, then - that your religion is more likely to be a matter of indoctrination, than a matter of logic.

See - this is why I think it should be illegal to even MENTION religions to anyone below the age of majority.


It is from the religious view point by which the claim comes that having a God in the universe is more rational than not. But this is a subjective claim. The best rational in the world is no better than the assumptions upon which it is based.


I disagree with your premise. It is NOT based on a view point of 'rationality' at all - it is based on being obedient to what you are told, or being trusting to your source.

Neither of which has ANYTHING to do with the idea of the universe being more or less 'rational' with god.


And the existence or non-existence of God is currently the risk every rational thinker has to take.


Not at all. As an Atheist, I do not accept the premise of god as a reasonable assumption. But, it is not a 'risk' to me... it is irrelevent.


You are right in saying that neither side of the argument has the right to lump the other with the burden of proof.


While this is true as a general rule of civil coexistence... a burden of proof DOES and SHOULD exist when one 'side' attempts to prove the claims of the other 'side' to be false.

Except, of course, that Lilith was alleged to be the first bride of Adam, and she was created AFTER the creation of the world... she is also supposed to be the mother of the 'Lilim', a class of demons.

Thus, at least SOME of the 'demons' have to have been on the earth AFTER the creation of the earth. (Allegedly, the Lilim steal human babies - which would reinforce a post-creation, and even post-Fall existence).

I have never heard of this before - where can I get more info on it ?

I haven't sinned.

I don't believe in the same definition of sin or wrongdoing as you do.

I also don't believe in your god. It hasn't given me a reason to believe in it afterall.

I am curious. What is your definition of sin or wrongdoing?

And have you ever committed sin/done wrong in your own eyes?

::quiet applause::

thank you, as an avowed athiest who often has a temper problem when countering religious arguements, i am glad there is at least one rational speaker(writer) out there that can say exactly what i would like to say when i am turning blue in the face to keep from screaming.

I am curious. What is your definition of sin or wrongdoing?

And have you ever committed sin/done wrong in your own eyes?

I certainly havent rebelled against something which I have no reason to believe in the existence of. As for wrongdoing, thats a different matter...

I have never heard of this before - where can I get more info on it ?

Well, short of recommending you actually hunt down midrash scriptures to read, you can always get an introduction to the topic through the Wikipedia.

Just remember - Wikipedia is not gospel.

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

I've seen sources before that claim Lilith as a goddess, as a demon, as the mother of the Lilim (Lilin, Lilitu), as the wife of Adam... even as the wife of 'god'.

There is a 'theory' that the two creation accounts in Genesis differ for SPECIFIC reason. So - when the first 'creation account' lists god creating man and woman, as opposed to the 'second creation account' - which shows Adam created first, and Eve created FROM Adam - it is assumed the 'specific reason' is that Eve is NOT Adam's first bride.

Indeed - the tradition holds that Lilith demanded equality with Adam, since she was created WITH Adam (probably based on the assertion that women are subservient to men because Eve was created FROM Adam).

Her sin, allegedly, was that she wished to be equal to Adam. For which she was exiled. As an extra thought - the fact that Lilith would have been exiled from Eden BEFORE the 'Fall', would imply that HER 'sin' would not result in death...

My recomendation in these instances is always the same, though. Consider this a starting point, if you are interested, not 'the answer'... just 'AN answer'.

Anyway, about evolution. Can anyone reconcile my inquiry? If all life is descended from a single simple life form and changed and so on, where did that life form come from? I have never quite understood this and would be interested to know.

"I believe in God because if I die and He doesn't exist then I'm dead and it doesn't matter. However, if I die and He does exist then I'm laughing," or thereabouts. Little bit of light-heartedness.


Bringing up Pascal's Wager isn't generally appreciated

Bringing up Pascal's Wager isn't generally appreciated

And it's gone. Voila!

By the way Valdania, do you have a response to my question?

"I believe in God because if I die and He doesn't exist then I'm dead and it doesn't matter. However, if I die and He does exist then I'm laughing," or thereabouts. Little bit of light-heartedness.

Anyway, about evolution. Can anyone reconcile my inquiry? If all life is descended from a single simple life form and changed and so on, where did that life form come from? I have never quite understood this and would be interested to know.
Simpler self-reproducing forms, perhaps. One theory I heard is that self-replicating silicon based forms used DNA as an aide/symbiote, until DNA became advanced enough to become life.
And these forms came about due to random chance - the random combination of molecules which could comine further and eventually self-replicate. Of course, the silcion-based foms are on;y a postulate, and are unnecessary. DNA could have come aout from earlier proto-DNAs which came from ealier ones and so on until we reach basic compounds.

Yes, but where did they come from? This is what I don't understand.

Yes, but where did they come from? This is what I don't understand.

Do you mean where did they come from or who put them there?

Do you mean where did they come from or who put them there?

Whichever! I don't really mind. Just so long as I get an answer. This is why I am not willing to accept the theory of evolution. What is the ultimate origin? Is it God? Is it steady state? What? If someone can explain what allowance evolution makes for this then I am willing to consider it as a possibility.

Yes, but where did they come from? This is what I don't understand.
What, the simple compounds or the proto-DNAs? Simple compounds came from atoms combining. Proto-DNAs came from simple compounds combining. And DNA came from proto-DNAs combining and/or evolving.

Whichever! I don't really mind. Just so long as I get an answer. This is why I am not willing to accept the theory of evolution. What is the ultimate origin? Is it God? Is it steady state? What? If someone can explain what allowance evolution makes for this then I am willing to consider it as a possibility.

:headbang: typical theist misunderstanding. evolution does not attempt to explain abiogenesis, any more than automobile mechanics attempts to explain iron smelting.

the reason christians are threatened by evolution is that it discredits the idea that every species was created as it is today by an omnipotent creator as detailed in genesis. Therefore undermining the bible as the truthful, complete and immutable word of god which so many christians believe it to be. If one part is wrong/incomplete, what about the rest of it?

Evolutionary theory explains the mechanism by which species come into being not how life came into being

typical theist misunderstanding. evolution does not attempt to explain abiogenesis, any more than automobile mechanics attempts to explain iron smelting.

Why? Is it because it can't, eh? Answer my query in a satisactory manner and I can at least make an informed decision. By the way, the origins of simple compounds and proto-DNA please. One or the other. Both. Anything that you can come up with.

please see above edit

...the reason christians are threatened by evolution...

Evolutionary theory explains the mechanism by which species come into being not how life came into being

I am a Roman Catholic and I do not feel threatened by evolution. It isn't exactly going to leap out of the scrub and carry me off to a dark part of the forest.

Anyway, I am trying to ascertain the supposed origins of the compound and proto-DNA. If I have all of the facts and suppositions and what have you then I can make an informed judgement.

the idea is that evolutionary theory is not inherently incompatible with belief in a god. It is inherently incompatible with bible literalism.

Asking someone to explain the origin of life from unlife using evolutionary theory is like asking someone to explain the origins of the grand canyon with the theory of cheesemaking. it simply isnt relevant and does not even pretend to be, other than when religious types use abiogenesis as a strawman to discredit evolution.

the idea is that evolutionary theory is not inherently incompatible with belief in a god. It is inherently incompatible with bible literalism.

Asking someone to explain the origin of life from unlife using evolutionary theory is like asking someone to explain the origins of the grand canyon with the theory of cheesemaking. it simply isnt relevant and does not even pretend to be, other than when religious types use abiogenesis as a strawman to discredit evolution.

So, we are agreed that evolution does not invalidate a belief in a higher being.

I have been told during the course of this discussion that evolution can be traced back to proto-DNA and simple compounds. I am now trying to delve beyond that in order to learn about current scientific theory on their origins, not the root of evolution. I am interested in what the realm of science has to say and will listen.

So, we are agreed that evolution does not invalidate a belief in a higher being.

I have been told during the course of this discussion that evolution can be traced back to proto-DNA and simple compounds. I am now trying to delve beyond that in order to learn about current scientific theory on their origins, not the root of evolution. I am interested in what the realm of science has to say and will listen.
See above. I quote from me:
Simple compounds came from atoms combining. Proto-DNAs came from simple compounds combining. And DNA came from proto-DNAs combining and/or evolving.
I am unsure as to where I read this theory - it may have been Dawkins, it may have been somewhere else. And it, like Boysieland says, nothing to do with evolution.
I also do not know if this is the only theory, or even the best.

if you aren't already accustomed to reading scientific articles you could do a lot worse than read some of Richard Dawkins' books. The selfish gene is a good way of explaining evolution in simple terms that leads on to the more scientific basis of the theory, I believe at least one of his other books has a section on theories of the origin of life.

I am unsure as to where I read this theory - it may have been Dawkins, it may have been somewhere else. And it, like Boysieland says, nothing to do with evolution.
I also do not know if this is the only theory, or even the best.

So, science is at a brick wall for now? Very well then, I shall keep my Roman Catholic beliefs for the timebeing until they can come up with a new idea.

if you aren't already accustomed to reading scientific articles you could do a lot worse than read some of Richard Dawkins' books. The selfish gene is a good way of explaining evolution in simple terms that leads on to the more scientific basis of the theory, I believe at least one of his other books has a section on theories of the origin of life.

I shall look him up in the Central Library. Dawkins.

the idea is that evolutionary theory is not inherently incompatible with belief in a god. It is inherently incompatible with bible literalism.

Asking someone to explain the origin of life from unlife using evolutionary theory is like asking someone to explain the origins of the grand canyon with the theory of cheesemaking. it simply isnt relevant and does not even pretend to be, other than when religious types use abiogenesis as a strawman to discredit evolution.

So life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, just as cheese has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon?

Or is it more like asking someone where the water came from to create the Grand Canyon, in order for erosion to take place?

Where life came from, in order for evolution to take place?

Completely irrelevant of course. Like asking for a map to get to Washington DC from an unknown point of origin, and saying that since we know that the destination exists, the point of origin does not matter, we can get there somehow?

So, science is at a brick wall for now? Very well then, I shall keep my Roman Catholic beliefs for the timebeing until they can come up with a new idea.
What? That has absolutely NO relevance to what I just posted! Perhaps I should have said that evolution does not attempt to explain how life began.
Science thinks that life started due to random chance assembling molecules together. It certainly is possible - look at the Miller-Urey experiment, which saw amino acids created in a jar in two weeks from simple elements and componds approximating the composition of early Earth's atmosphere.
That's science's explanation. No bick walls. No walls, full stop.
Keep your beliefs, though, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

So life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, just as cheese has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon?

Or is it more like asking someone where the water came from to create the Grand Canyon, in order for erosion to take place?

Where life came from, in order for evolution to take place?

Completely irrelevant of course. Like asking for a map to get to Washington DC from an unknown point of origin, and saying that since we know that the destination exists, the point of origin does not matter, we can get there somehow?
Nope, evolution is a map to get from Houston, Texas to Washington DC (the first life being Houston and Washington DC bein, let's say, us). Abiogenesis is how to get to Houston in the first place.

So, we are agreed that evolution does not invalidate a belief in a higher being.

I have been told during the course of this discussion that evolution can be traced back to proto-DNA and simple compounds. I am now trying to delve beyond that in order to learn about current scientific theory on their origins, not the root of evolution. I am interested in what the realm of science has to say and will listen.

The theory of evolution says nothing about the 'origins' of 'life'... just the mechanisms by which it might change.

Thus - the origins of 'first life' are irrelevent to the debate of whether 'evolution' is sound.

We can speculate for you, if you like... but it is not actually pertinent to the topic.


Personally, I am willing to accept randomness, coupled with unfeasibly long exposure, as the likely 'origin of life'. Simply put - if you leave chemicals together in an excitable environment, for sufficiently long periods, you are likely to see a broad range of reactions. Some of these reactions are favoured within certain parameters, (sort of a 'chemical evolution, perhaps) and some actually form compounds that are favoured (again, LIKE evolution) over other compounds.

As an example - many compounds are formed in reactions, that actually 'buffer' a reverse reaction.

What you would be looking for, would be a fairly simplistic reaction that formed fairly complex chains of molecules - that, in turn - formed an environment that favoured further similar reactions... even catalysed them.

Given a laboratory the size of a world, an effectively infinite supply of reagents, an effectively boundless access to energy, and an effectively infinite reaction time - sufficiently complex 'self-replicating' molecules become almost INEVITABLE.

So life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, just as cheese has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon?

Or is it more like asking someone where the water came from to create the Grand Canyon, in order for erosion to take place?

Where life came from, in order for evolution to take place?

Completely irrelevant of course. Like asking for a map to get to Washington DC from an unknown point of origin, and saying that since we know that the destination exists, the point of origin does not matter, we can get there somehow?

Does the principle of erosion REQUIRE an understanding of HOW a water molecule is 'made'?

The Grand Canyon would be an example of erosion, perhaps - and we might ASSUME (with good reason) that water was the instrument OF that erosion... but it could have been liquid nitrogen... or mercury, or tiny ballbearings acting as a fluid.

The principle doesn't centre on the origins - but on the mechanism.

the critical part of my statement that you have conveniently missed out is that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. It is outside the scope of what evolution attempts to explain.

the idea that because evolutionary theory covers one important aspects of the process of life, it must be able to explain all of the processes of life including its inception is a strange one to me. Almost as strange as some religious people taking the failure of current science to form a unified theory of everything as automatic proof that not just any god but THEIR personal god provides an acceptable answer which should be accepted without question.

What? That has absolutely NO relevance to what I just posted! Perhaps I should have said that evolution does not attempt to explain how life began.
Science thinks that life started due to random chance assembling molecules together. It certainly is possible - look at the Miller-Urey experiment, which saw amino acids created in a jar in two weeks from simple elements and componds approximating the composition of early Earth's atmosphere.
That's science's explanation. No bick walls. No walls, full stop.
Keep your beliefs, though, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

It has relevance to my request for information. I did not dispute your statement that evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Anyway, I was not aware that the universe started off as a large marmalade pot with bits of fluff in it. Random chance! Where did the reactants come from? Alternatively, who made them? This is what I wish to find an explanation for, even if it contrasts with my current belief system. If I can review all of the evidence and theory and speculation then I can make an informed evaluation.

What? That has absolutely NO relevance to what I just posted! Perhaps I should have said that evolution does not attempt to explain how life began.
Science thinks that life started due to random chance assembling molecules together. It certainly is possible - look at the Miller-Urey experiment, which saw amino acids created in a jar in two weeks from simple elements and componds approximating the composition of early Earth's atmosphere.
That's science's explanation. No bick walls. No walls, full stop.
Keep your beliefs, though, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Two things:

1) Miller-Urey showed that with intelligent design and the proper materials, it is possible to create basic organic compounds from their components.

2) According to an EU educational website, http://www.theguardians.com/Microbiology/gm_mbm15.htm

"The big mystery of life is not how it is assembled, but how did the first set of assembly instructions come into being, apparently in a dumb Universe without intelligent intervention?

Despite the initial euphoria, the Miller-Urey experiment took us no further than repeating that very question in our quest to understand how life came about. It was, and remains, a long way from giving us the answer to the origin of life and the means to create it from first principles.

By the 1980's ideas about the early Earth had changed and the Miller-Urey experiment was considered irrelevant. It no longer represented the conditions of the early Earth, according to the new theories. "

(I knew that I had read in more recent evolutionary supporting docs that Miller-Urey was no longer relevant.)

P.S. I am Christian, and am not threatened by evolution. My analysis of the literature is that the explanations read like scientific fairy stories. Lots of handwavium involved, so I don't buy it. If someone is ever able to explain it logically, without the just so fudge factor, I would be able to accept it.

applause to grave_n_idle for explaining it more eloquently and accurately than I could.

the critical part of my statement that you have conveniently missed out is that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. It is outside the scope of what evolution attempts to explain.

the idea that because evolutionary theory covers one important aspects of the process of life, it must be able to explain all of the processes of life including its inception is a strange one to me. Almost as strange as some religious people taking the failure of current science to form a unified theory of everything as automatic proof that not just any god but THEIR personal god provides an acceptable answer which should be accepted without question.

I have not missed it out, thank you very much. I was waiting for an answer to my question, regardless of what evolution thinks.

EDIT: Scientists can't even agree on how many elements there are in the Periodic Table so I hardly expect them to come up with a universal theory.

So life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, just as cheese has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon?

Or is it more like asking someone where the water came from to create the Grand Canyon, in order for erosion to take place?

Where life came from, in order for evolution to take place?

Completely irrelevant of course. Like asking for a map to get to Washington DC from an unknown point of origin, and saying that since we know that the destination exists, the point of origin does not matter, we can get there somehow?

If I give you a map to get to Washington from wherever you are, then yes, it doesn't matter for the purposes of getting to Washington if you know where you started. The map itself traces the route. So take the first left and then get onto the highway... If you then examine the map in reverse FROM Washington, you will probably be able to get VERY close to figuring out where you started. The map, itself, however, does not even propose to tell you who built the town you started in, that is a whole different inquiry. Evolution draws the map, it does not claim to figure out who built the town.

It has relevance to my request for information. I did not dispute your statement that evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Anyway, I was not aware that the universe started off as a large marmalade pot with bits of fluff in it. Random chance! Where did the reactants come from? Alternatively, who made them? This is what I wish to find an explanation for, even if it contrasts with my current belief system. If I can review all of the evidence and theory and speculation then I can make an informed evaluation.
It started off as something which can be reasonably simulated as a 'marmalade pot with bits of fluff in it' (I assume you're using that somewhat facetiously, right?).
The reactants came from the stuff that was lying around on the earth. And the earth came from a big cloud of dust orbiting the sun. And that came from the uneven distribution of matter throughout the galaxy, and that came from the big bang, which happened when a singularity went boom. Satisfactory? If you want a more detailed explanation, you might want to try out some books on the origins of the universe, cos I can't give it off-hand.
Now if you want me to explain the singularity - who created it, and why it went boom - I can't. Here, science has no answers I know of. Of course, that doesn't mean that there are no non-God answers, just that I know none of them. (Apart from the uncaused cause.)

"There may be some deep questions about the cosmos that are forever beyond science. The mistake is to think that they are therefore not beyond religion, too." Richard Dawkins.

http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html

Two things:

1) Miller-Urey showed that with intelligent design and the proper materials, it is possible to create basic organic compounds from their components.
Where does the intelligent design come in? There was nothing present in their experiment that wasn't present in their model of the early earth - basic elements, and lightning. No intelligent design, unless you count recreating something as intelligent design. I accept your point on it being no longer valid though - I din't know that.

P.S. I am Christian, and am not threatened by evolution. My analysis of the literature is that the explanations read like scientific fairy stories. Lots of handwavium involved, so I don't buy it. If someone is ever able to explain it logically, without the just so fudge factor, I would be able to accept it.
I find the 'fairy stories' bit funny, but whatever. I will give this a shot, but no gaurantee it'll work.
Creatures pass on their genetic information to their offspring. Every so often, a mutation occurs by random chance. If this mutation is beneficial, then it is more likely to survive to the next generation as it aids the animal to survive. If it isn't, then the animal is less likely to pass it on. Over time, this gradual process changes creatures.
Any problems with that?

It started off as something which can be reasonably simulated as a 'marmalade pot with bits of fluff in it' (I assume you're using that somewhat facetiously, right?).
The reactants came from the stuff that was lying around on the earth. And the earth came from a big cloud of dust orbiting the sun. And that came from the uneven distribution of matter throughout the galaxy, and that came from the big bang, which happened when a singularity went boom. Satisfactory? If you want a more detailed explanation, you might want to try out some books on the origins of the universe, cos I can't give it off-hand.
Now if you want me to explain the singularity - who created it, and why it went boom - I can't. Here, science has no answers I know of. Of course, that doesn't mean that there are no non-God answers, just that I know none of them. (Apart from the uncaused cause.)

This is a theory, it is not fact. Just as Genesis is classed as theory in "RMPS". And no, it is not satisfactory because there is still no answer to the absolute origin, which is what I have asked for.

EDIT: Even if the solution is that nothing happened and there is no such thing as life and the earth and that everything is false, or whatever. Speculate to your heart's content.

It has relevance to my request for information. I did not dispute your statement that evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Anyway, I was not aware that the universe started off as a large marmalade pot with bits of fluff in it. Random chance! Where did the reactants come from? Alternatively, who made them? This is what I wish to find an explanation for, even if it contrasts with my current belief system. If I can review all of the evidence and theory and speculation then I can make an informed evaluation.

What is it you want?

You said you wanted to understand evolution.... but were really thinking about where the building blocks of life came from... now, you seem to have progressed a stage further - where did the elements FORMING the building blocks come from.

Again - you are skiiping disciplines... which is the problem with debate between the non-science-theist and the scientist (theist or otherwise).

The theory of evolution doesn't 'care' about how life started... just how it progresses. It 'cares' even LESS for the origins of the universe.

Again - we can speculate - but it has NO bearing on the validity of evolution.


But - if you want speculation: How about, our universe is built from the ashes of a previous universe, just as THAT one was born from the remains of the one before it... etc.. for all eterniy?

applause to grave_n_idle for explaining it more eloquently and accurately than I could.

*takes a bow* Many thanks, my friend. :)

EDIT: Scientists can't even agree on how many elements there are in the Periodic Table so I hardly expect them to come up with a universal theory.

You base this on... what?

Most scientists agree on the number of elements that are accepted as validated. 'Science' doesn't necessarilly believe that those are ALL of the elements we MIGHT find.

For the last time!
The first question was of the root of evolution: what was the simplest...thing?
Response: proto-DNA or simple compounds.
Next question: where did those things come from?
Response: the Big Bang.
Current question: why should that have happened and what came before (if anything did)?
I hope that I have made clear that I do not care one jot for what evolution says about the origins of life and the universe. These are separate questions.

This is a theory, it is not fact. Just as Genesis is classed as theory in "RMPS". And no, it is not satisfactory because there is still no answer to the absolute origin, which is what I have asked for.

EDIT: Even if the solution is that nothing happened and there is no such thing as life and the earth and that everything is false, or whatever. Speculate to your heart's content.
Everything in science is a theory, not a fact. The THEORY of gravitation? The THEORY of evolution? Your point?
Also, in the beginning, you just wanted the origin of life. I gave you it. Now you want the ultimate origin. I told you, I can't give it. Hell, no one can. God is just as much a theory here as the previous universes Grave_m_idle suggested.

I am Christian, and am not threatened by evolution. My analysis of the literature is that the explanations read like scientific fairy stories. Lots of handwavium involved, so I don't buy it. If someone is ever able to explain it logically, without the just so fudge factor, I would be able to accept it.

You are unwilling to accept evolution, because it reads like a fairy tale?

How, then - can you call yourself Christian - which is based entirely on accepting a thing that cannot be empirically proved?

You base this on... what?

Most scientists agree on the number of elements that are accepted as validated. 'Science' doesn't necessarilly believe that those are ALL of the elements we MIGHT find.

Most, but not all. Therefore, they are unable to agree on which elements have been 'discovered' already.

For the last time!
The first question was of the root of evolution: what was the simplest...thing?
Response: proto-DNA or simple compounds.
Next question: where did those things come from?
Response: the Big Bang.
Current question: why should that have happened and what came before (if anything did)?
I hope that I have made clear that I do not care one jot for what evolution says about the origins of life and the universe. These are separate questions.

Yes. They ARE different questions. So, why do you keep moving the goalposts?

If evolution can be 'proved' to be true, will it matter that science leaves the origins of the universe to speculation?

Speculation about the ultimate origin will do for me. For example, it has been suggested that there was no origin. Any more?

Anyway, about evolution. Can anyone reconcile my inquiry? If all life is descended from a single simple life form and changed and so on, where did that life form come from? I have never quite understood this and would be interested to know.
Your original question. And we told you. It came from a previous thing. ou didn't ask for the ultimate origin of things, at least not clearly enough for anyone to understand.
So what is your explanation of the formation of the universe? Or the origin of life?

Yes. They ARE different questions. So, why do you keep moving the goalposts?

If evolution can be 'proved' to be true, will it matter that science leaves the origins of the universe to speculation?

I call it progression backwards though Time. We suggest that there were proto-DNAs. Fine. Next, where did the proto-DNA and whatnot come from? And so on.

Your original question. And we told you. It came from a previous thing. ou didn't ask for the ultimate origin of things, at least not clearly enough for anyone to understand.
So what is your explanation of the formation of the universe? Or the origin of life?

Please see my last post for the reasoning behind the change in query.

Anyway, currently I tend towards the Genesis option until I hear of a better one.

Most, but not all. Therefore, they are unable to agree on which elements have been 'discovered' already.

You are confused. There ARE differences - but those are differences in what is considered 'official'.

If, for example, my 'lab' discovers a new element, which we call "Atheistium"... but YOUR lab cannot find any trace of it (either because it is incredibly rare, or just because your lab uses different recording standards and equipment)... does that mean we disagree on which elements have been discovered?

Or - are we just disagreeing on which elements should be OFFICIAL, until we can reproduce the initial find?

Please see my last post for the reasoning behind the change in query.

Anyway, currently I tend towards the Genesis option until I hear of a better one.
Fair enough. Right. So where did God come from?

Please see my last post for the reasoning behind the change in query.

Anyway, currently I tend towards the Genesis option until I hear of a better one.

Better than Genesis?

You don't set your sights very high.

Why don't you show me a single piece of evidence that physically supports Genesis? (A book written about it is NOT physical evidence of it).

For a start - you'd have to show irrefutable evidence that the world is NOT as old as it seems...

Current question: why should that have happened and what came before (if anything did)?
Nobody is sure. As something that happened in the past and whose result is impossible to see the entirity of, the only explanations we can give are speculative ones based on what of it we can observe.

An interesting one, though, is the suggestion that it was the result of a non-linear timeframe; or, at least, a time frame running in a different direction to the one we perceive the universe to be running in. If the universe has parallels in other dimensions, they could well display a different sort of behaviour in time. Thus, the beginning of time in this dimensional perception of reality could be caused by a dimensional parallel whose own beginning of time will at some point be caused by our own!

It boggles the mind, huh? :D

Nobody is sure. As something that happened in the past and whose result is impossible to see the entirity of, the only explanations we can give are speculative ones based on what of it we can observe.

An interesting one, though, is the suggestion that it was the result of a non-linear timeframe; or, at least, a time frame running in a different direction to the one we perceive the universe to be running in. If the universe has parallels in other dimensions, they could well display a different sort of behaviour in time. Thus, the beginning of time in this dimensional perception of reality could be caused by a dimensional parallel whose own beginning of time will at some point be caused by our own!

It boggles the mind, huh? :D

Yes, it does, but this is the type of thing that I am looking for. What are the options? This is what I wish to ascertain.

You are confused. There ARE differences - but those are differences in what is considered 'official'.

If, for example, my 'lab' discovers a new element, which we call "Atheistium"... but YOUR lab cannot find any trace of it (either because it is incredibly rare, or just because your lab uses different recording standards and equipment)... does that mean we disagree on which elements have been discovered?

Or - are we just disagreeing on which elements should be OFFICIAL, until we can reproduce the initial find?

So, if I can claim to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary then we only disagree over whether this is official. I mean, it might be a very rare occurrence or you might have dropped your pince-nez.

Fair enough. Right. So where did God come from?

God is the eternal power, the uncaused cause?

God is the eternal power, the uncaused cause?
And why can't the universe be that, and eliminate God entirely? Occam's Razor, after all...

Better than Genesis?

You don't set your sights very high.

Why don't you show me a single piece of evidence that physically supports Genesis? (A book written about it is NOT physical evidence of it).

For a start - you'd have to show irrefutable evidence that the world is NOT as old as it seems...

While I'm doing that you can dig out that old video tape of the Big Bang in action for me. Honestly! Unless I build a Time Machine and show you then how is it possible to prove anything irrefutably?

While I'm doing that you can dig out that old video tape of the Big Bang in action for me. Honestly! Unless I build a Time Machine and show you then how is it possible to prove anything irrefutably?
OK, show SOME evidence that the earth is less old than it seems - let's say less than ten thousand years old.

And why can't the universe be that, and eliminate God entirely? Occam's Razor, after all...

Supposedly, the universe as we know it was created by the Big Bang. So, does the universe possess the power to create itself?

OK, show SOME evidence that the earth is less old than it seems - let's say less than ten thousand years old.

Is that in Earth years?

Supposedly, the universe as we know it was created by the Big Bang. So, does the universe possess the power to create itself?
Never said it did. But the singularity before it could have had this power, or just appeared, or always existed, like God is supposed to.
Actually, I forgot, before the universe began there was no time (because time and space are linked, see Einstein). Not sure what this means for the creation of the universe, but I'm sure someone could come up with something. I however, have to head home, because it is late and I have study to start.

Is that in Earth years?
Yup... Why, what other kind are there? Alternatively, show that it is your chosen age, consistent with Genesis, and explain why this age is consistent.

Yup... Why, what other kind are there? Alternatively, show that it is your chosen age, consistent with Genesis, and explain why this age is consistent.

Well, martian, plutonian, and so on.

Anyway, I cannot show you because it has been and gone. I do not hold a specific date for 'the Beginning' in my head and have never attempted to interpret the Bible to find one. I am of the mindset that there should never have been an attempt to identify the "Falling Man" and I do not wish to tear apart Holy Writ in a search for science of which there is no possibility of my proving. Let people read into it what they will, but I do not care for such things myself.

Well, martian, plutonian, and so on.

Anyway, I cannot show you because it has been and gone. I do not hold a specific date for 'the Beginning' in my head and have never attempted to interpret the Bible to find one. I am of the mindset that there should never have been an attempt to identify the "Falling Man" and I do not wish to tear apart Holy Writ in a search for science of which there is no possibility of my proving. Let people read into it what they will, but I do not care for such things myself.
So you're going to point out the possible flaws in our theories and ask us to justify them, but not do the same for your theory? Your theory is that you're right no matter what.
Fair enough. You're wrong, we're right. Makes just as much bloody sense. I could have gone home and done some study instead of trying to explain things.

Point out flaws in my current belief system and I shall attempt to justify them also. However, you cannot expect me to fulfil what I cannot, such as showing you the moment of creation.

Anyway, how can a universe, which does not yet exist, cause itself to come into being if it is not there? That was my response to the question. Next, please.

So, if I can claim to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary then we only disagree over whether this is official. I mean, it might be a very rare occurrence or you might have dropped your pince-nez.

This is entirely possible. What are you looking for me to say?

My Atheism aside, the reason why these 'visions' of the Virgin Mary are considered so dubious, is because they cannot be 'repeated'.

Certainly - if you claim you see the Virgin Mary, I am going to assume it less than 'official' until I see some pretty good evidence.

If you saw it through the scientific method, so that I could at least document and verify your 'methodology', if not the result, I might be less skeptical. And, if by repeating your 'procedure', I could demonstrate the SAME results, we might really have something.

So you're going to point out the possible flaws in our theories and ask us to justify them, but not do the same for your theory? Your theory is that you're right no matter what.
Fair enough. You're wrong, we're right. Makes just as much bloody sense. I could have gone home and done some study instead of trying to explain things.

And no, that is not my philosophy. I have stated that I cannot show you the truth because it has passed. Unless Time reverses itself (which is almost impossible) then I cannot wind back the clock, can I? I was asked for a date and I explained that I do not care to make such huge assertions. A date! If you really want one then it was the 26th August 7,926B.C.

While I'm doing that you can dig out that old video tape of the Big Bang in action for me. Honestly! Unless I build a Time Machine and show you then how is it possible to prove anything irrefutably?

Why would I be providing such evidence? I have already told you that any theory I present for the origins of the universe MUST be speculation.

You, after all, are the one who believes that it is possible to HAVE an 'answer'.

But - if you believe the Genesis account to be absolutely literal - it should be fairly easy for you to prove this to be true - you would just have to show that the earth was less than... what... 6 thousand years old?

And then - explain why ALL the dating methods used 'conspire' to make it seem otherwise.

Supposedly, the universe as we know it was created by the Big Bang. So, does the universe possess the power to create itself?

Sure, why not?

Well, martian, plutonian, and so on.

Anyway, I cannot show you because it has been and gone. I do not hold a specific date for 'the Beginning' in my head and have never attempted to interpret the Bible to find one. I am of the mindset that there should never have been an attempt to identify the "Falling Man" and I do not wish to tear apart Holy Writ in a search for science of which there is no possibility of my proving. Let people read into it what they will, but I do not care for such things myself.

People very rarely have the stomach for battles they know they cannot win.

This is entirely possible. What are you looking for me to say?

My Atheism aside, the reason why these 'visions' of the Virgin Mary are considered so dubious, is because they cannot be 'repeated'.

Certainly - if you claim you see the Virgin Mary, I am going to assume it less than 'official' until I see some pretty good evidence.

If you saw it through the scientific method, so that I could at least document and verify your 'methodology', if not the result, I might be less skeptical. And, if by repeating your 'procedure', I could demonstrate the SAME results, we might really have something.

If you were to see and hear the Virgin Mary, what would your response be then? Would the evidence of your eyes and ears convince you? For that is what scientific proof is, observing or experiencing the same result in exactly the same way as far as I can understand your definition. Please correct me if I am mistaken, by the way. However, I might question whether it is for me to command the Saints. Perhaps closing your eyes and sitting could work, it helps me to find peace and serenity.

Why would I be providing such evidence? I have already told you that any theory I present for the origins of the universe MUST be speculation.

You, after all, are the one who believes that it is possible to HAVE an 'answer'.

But - if you believe the Genesis account to be absolutely literal - it should be fairly easy for you to prove this to be true - you would just have to show that the earth was less than... what... 6 thousand years old?

And then - explain why ALL the dating methods used 'conspire' to make it seem otherwise.

I have requested speculation, opinion and anything else that might crop up. If we can prove anything during the course of this discussion then so much the better. A hypothetical answer will satisfy me, just as I admit that the pattern of events in the Book of Genesis is one of the many theories, I am interested in all of the others.

Sure, why not?

If that were so then the universe would have existed already and would have had no need to create itself. Therefore, it either cannot create itself and something else did or it can create itself and has been in existence for an infinite length of time.

People very rarely have the stomach for battles they know they cannot win.

Just as I can never show anyone if the Genesis theory is absolutely, not one speck of doubt about it true, you cannot ever show that your theory is true. Therefore, I have saved myself a lot of pointless effort which would otherwise have been spent trying to prove the unprovable.

If you were to see and hear the Virgin Mary, what would your response be then? Would the evidence of your eyes and ears convince you? For that is what scientific proof is, observing or experiencing the same result in exactly the same way as far as I can understand your definition. Please correct me if I am mistaken, by the way. However, I might question whether it is for me to command the Saints. Perhaps closing your eyes and sitting could work, it helps me to find peace and serenity.

You seem to assume I have always been an Atheist... one should never assume, my friend.

The scientific method addresses observable phenomena. One observes such a thing, one theorises the cause, and then one tests the theory. Then, one amends the theory if it was proved faulty, with the new evidence.

If I saw the Virgin Mary, I would want to repeat the experience MYSELF, to ensure that I wasn't just overtired or something. If I could repeat the experience, by creating the same circumstances - I would wish for another to test my methodology, and see if THEY could verify my results through duplicating my method.

If they could - there might be some reason to believe I was witnessing a genuine phenomenon.

If they couldn't, I would be looking for another reason why I could see something they could not.

And - that is the core of the debate over 'elements'. There is one 'official' table, although there may well be other 'less official' versions that chose (for some reason) to skip the 'verification' step, for some reason.

Maybe those tables are admittedly 'unofficial'?

Just to say, I am fairly sure it was not God who cast out Satan, but Michael the Archangel who led the warhosts of Heaven. There was a war between Michael and the angels and between Satan and the Nephilim, the end result being success by the pure angels and casting the corrupted ones from Heaven.

Also, humans did not rebel against God per se... Eve was tricked by a snake (whom people suggest to have been Satan, though there is no specific mention of that in the bible.) and gave some of the fruit to Adam.

The first point I may or may not be wrong, the second one I am correct.

However as an atheist, I think it is a jolly nice story and nothing more. *grins*

I have requested speculation, opinion and anything else that might crop up. If we can prove anything during the course of this discussion then so much the better. A hypothetical answer will satisfy me, just as I admit that the pattern of events in the Book of Genesis is one of the many theories, I am interested in all of the others.

The idea in the book of Genesis is NOT a theory.

It is based on a pattern of assertion, that cannot be validated.

In order to be a 'theory', it needs to be based on observation.

But, I do not find your protestations genuine, anyway. You say you are interested in any answer, and yet you only acknowledge ONE 'religious' answer, of the thousands that are available.

In regards to the evolutionists saying, more or less, that believing in literal creationism is stupid: I assume you're better versed and more intelligent than this man: http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

Secondly, there's a good quote on the "omnipotence" of science:

Electricity: lights do not turn on because of science. Science means knowledge. We found out enough about electricity to learn how to harness it. Science did not invent electricity and science does not turn on lights. A completed electrical connection turns on lights. Science discovered how to do it. There is a difference. If the electrons did not have the charge and the properties they do, science could never have done anything about learning how to fashion an electrical circuit. But the properties and charges within atoms are part of something that is intricately and intelligently designed. Science cannot take credit for doing anything but having scratched the surface of knowledge concerning this.

And furthermore:

And now, evolution: The writer, I am sure, is referring to the kind of evolution inferred from the fossil record. Contrary to evolutionists' claims, this is quite different from the sort of variation we see everyday: hair color, rose color, dog size, finches' beaks. No one disputes these sorts of variations. But they do not change the sort of thing the organism is: the person remains a person, the rose a rose, the dog a dog, and the finch a finch. Evolution, as it is commonly referred to, demands much more than this. It demands that there have been enough directional mutations, one added to another, through the ages, to change what was once a unicellular organism into the variety of life we see today. This kind of evolution is lacking a mechanism, however, as mutations are not known to do this. We see single mutations, such as antibiotic resistance, malarial resistance (which, in its homozygous form, confers the deadly sickle cell disease), and such, but we do not see mutations adding up anywhere to produce a new form or function. Instead, the vast majority of mutations we do see are negative, harming the organism involved. Those that do not harm, such as antibiotic resistance changes, have the effect of weakening the organism in any environment except the specific one in which that change helped it survive. Change the environment and the original form, if it still exists, proves strongest and takes over again. What we see, what we can work with, and what we see as the results of tests, is called biological stasis. No matter how many generations of E.coli bacteria are worked with, they remain....E.coli. No matter how many generations of fruit flies are subjects of forced mutations, they remain.... fruit flies. We can get different types of mice for our lab experiments until we run out of names for them. They remain mice. This is biological stasis. Variation seems to exist within what Genesis refers to as the "kind," and that is all. Does the scientific consensus overwhelmingly support evolution? Yes, it does. The question is, Why? First of all, most areas of science don't concern themselves with evolution or creation. Science tends to be so incredibly technical today that it is the science philosophers who have taken over the arguments concerning evolution and creation. The scientists in the labs and in the field are, with the exception of some geologists and paleontologists, not thinking about evolution. But that is what they were taught in university as true. And so they accept it. And they accept that anything else is some kind of weird religious doctrine. But if you ask the scientist to point to something in his own field which verifies the type of evolution that turns bacteria to bears, or even supports it, you will get mostly silence. He may point to another field, but very few are willing to point to something in their own field of study which supports evolution especially if you ask them to support evolution to the exclusion of creation.
Thus, to say that the majority of scientists accept evolution may be true on the surface, but that is about as far as their acceptance goes anyway. If a person wants to really find out which is true, it is best to dig into the evidence and read what has been written on both sides. When one meets those who have done so, one just might find a few more creationists than one expected to find. And an even greater number of anti-evolutionists. *Scientifically*, evolution is not something that has been shown to work. Yes, plants and animals change. They can vary in some possibly startling ways. But no breeder of horses, or dogs, or cattle, and no parent, when they hear, "there seems to be a mutation..." is going to excitedly ask, "Is it a good one?"
So I would humbly suggest that it is not the idea of creation which is keeping us in ignorance. It is, rather, the idea that evolution is proven and cannot be challenged that is begetting ignorance. It has not been proven in thousands upon thousands of generations of E.coli, nor has it been proven anywhere else. Remember we are not talking about simple variations within kind, or type, but actual change away from that type -- the type of change on which another change, or mutation, can build so that something new is produced. We have never seen that happen. And until students and researchers are freed from the nonsense that this idea cannot be challenged in the classroom or professional literature, we will remain bound in the kind of ignorance which has resulted in such low test scores for United States students, much to our embarrassment.

If that were so then the universe would have existed already and would have had no need to create itself. Therefore, it either cannot create itself and something else did or it can create itself and has been in existence for an infinite length of time.

Your assertion is meaningless.

Why can the universe not 'create itself'?

We know that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, thus, it stands to reason they have ALWAYS existed in some form.

We might not know HOW that works, but it is consistent.

Again - I present the example of a cyclical universe.... each time the universe 'dies', it is reborn from it's own destructive process. Thus - the 'Big Bang' would be nothing more than a blip in an eternal series of such events.

We would only view this as the product of creation - but that is because we lack the ability to see before our universe was formed.

Just as I can never show anyone if the Genesis theory is absolutely, not one speck of doubt about it true, you cannot ever show that your theory is true. Therefore, I have saved myself a lot of pointless effort which would otherwise have been spent trying to prove the unprovable.

I don't HAVE a 'theory' to peddle... I have just offered conjectures, as you keep pretending to want.

All I have to do, is find reasonable doubt in the story you like, to be skeptical about it... and I find MUCH MORE than reasonable doubt... and nothing to oppose it but some old texts.

You seem to assume I have always been an Atheist... one should never assume, my friend.

The scientific method addresses observable phenomena. One observes such a thing, one theorises the cause, and then one tests the theory. Then, one amends the theory if it was proved faulty, with the new evidence.

If I saw the Virgin Mary, I would want to repeat the experience MYSELF, to ensure that I wasn't just overtired or something. If I could repeat the experience, by creating the same circumstances - I would wish for another to test my methodology, and see if THEY could verify my results through duplicating my method.

If they could - there might be some reason to believe I was witnessing a genuine phenomenon.

If they couldn't, I would be looking for another reason why I could see something they could not.

And - that is the core of the debate over 'elements'. There is one 'official' table, although there may well be other 'less official' versions that chose (for some reason) to skip the 'verification' step, for some reason.

Maybe those tables are admittedly 'unofficial'?

I assume nothing. Especially in matters such as this.

Anyway, what if the cause was divine, over which we have no absolute control, therefore making it impossible to force a result, but allowing the theory to hold true?

Alas, we cannot duplicate the past! We can never arrange for a situation to be identical to a previous one. Pity though. Make life a lot easier.

A friend of mine, now sadly deceased, believed that he had seen salvation during his life and I have never doubted his word. He never told a lie in his life, as long as I knew him, and he was always a very level-headed and trustworthy boy. I do not wish to intrude upon his joy and mirth, even if it was false. Science couldn't help him, but his God did.

Sorry, I'm getting sentimental. This is what I should prefer in the world. I do not object to science or its proponents, but I feel that unless such things as this can be explained then religion must still co-exist, even if there is dispute between the two.

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.



I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".
Im a sinner, I like sinning and Im not going to stop and Im not asking for forgiveness. Sinning is fun, everyone should do it more. YAY for sinning! on a side note, God doesnt exist and the Bible is very wrong, fill in the rest.

Im a sinner, I like sinning and Im not going to stop and Im not asking for forgiveness. Sinning is fun, everyone should do it more. YAY for sinning! on a side note, God doesnt exist and the Bible is very wrong, fill in the rest.

Give Satanism a try. There are enough branches you can find something you'd like, though I would advise the Church of Satan. (Of course I am conservative...)

The idea in the book of Genesis is NOT a theory.

It is based on a pattern of assertion, that cannot be validated.

In order to be a 'theory', it needs to be based on observation.

But, I do not find your protestations genuine, anyway. You say you are interested in any answer, and yet you only acknowledge ONE 'religious' answer, of the thousands that are available.

"theory n. Scheme or system of ideas or statements held to explain group of facts or phenomena, statement of general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed ; systematic conception or statement of principles of something, abstract knowledge, formulation of this ; department of art or technical subject concerned with knowledge of its principles or methods, as opp. to practice ; systematic statement of general principles of some branch of mathematics ; mere hypothesis, conjecture, individual view or notion. theorist n. theorize v."

Have you suggested any other religious viewpoint during the entire course of this debate? Speak, name, define!

Your assertion is meaningless.

Why can the universe not 'create itself'?

We know that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, thus, it stands to reason they have ALWAYS existed in some form.

We might not know HOW that works, but it is consistent.

Again - I present the example of a cyclical universe.... each time the universe 'dies', it is reborn from it's own destructive process. Thus - the 'Big Bang' would be nothing more than a blip in an eternal series of such events.

We would only view this as the product of creation - but that is because we lack the ability to see before our universe was formed.

We know. You have observed the entire history and future and present of everything, have you? Just as we think that it is possible for Time to operate in reverse, we have never encountered this and we do not KNOW whether it is actually the case.

EDIT: Cyclical universe, ding-ding. Fine with me. Possible, I suppose.

If that were so then the universe would have existed already and would have had no need to create itself. Therefore, it either cannot create itself and something else did or it can create itself and has been in existence for an infinite length of time.
Unless, of course, the trail of time that passes the creation of our reality is not a straight line, but rather a recursive circular or enclosed path.

See, the thing about the "origin" of the universe is that it must occur within the frame of the "local time" of the universe, which is itself a part of it. Anything that occurred chronologically "before" is also "part of" the universe we find ourselves in.

In this case, the notion of a self-iterating time and space is the most stable idea.

Unless, of course, the trail of time that passes the creation of our reality is not a straight line, but rather a recursive circular or enclosed path.

See, the thing about the "origin" of the universe is that it must occur within the frame of the "local time" of the universe, which is itself a part of it. Anything that occurred chronologically "before" is also "part of" the universe we find ourselves in.

In this case, the notion of a self-iterating time and space is the most stable idea.

Good, good. This is what I'd like to hear. More of these ideas and theories.

EDIT: By the way, the straight line thing. Similar to the axes on a graph being huge circles, which are too large to see.

I assume nothing. Especially in matters such as this.

Anyway, what if the cause was divine, over which we have no absolute control, therefore making it impossible to force a result, but allowing the theory to hold true?

Alas, we cannot duplicate the past! We can never arrange for a situation to be identical to a previous one. Pity though. Make life a lot easier.

A friend of mine, now sadly deceased, believed that he had seen salvation during his life and I have never doubted his word. He never told a lie in his life, as long as I knew him, and he was always a very level-headed and trustworthy boy. I do not wish to intrude upon his joy and mirth, even if it was false. Science couldn't help him, but his God did.

Sorry, I'm getting sentimental. This is what I should prefer in the world. I do not object to science or its proponents, but I feel that unless such things as this can be explained then religion must still co-exist, even if there is dispute between the two.

But organised religion is, all to often, unwilling to ALLOW there to be a co-existence.

Take Intelligent Design, for example. It is NOT scientific. It fails to fulfill even the most BASIC requirements of adhering to the scientific method - and yet, religious fundamentalists are trying their hardest to have it wedged into the 'science' syllabus.

That is not co-existence.

That is - to co-existence (between religion and science), what rape is to kissing.

"theory n. Scheme or system of ideas or statements held to explain group of facts or phenomena, statement of general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed ; systematic conception or statement of principles of something, abstract knowledge, formulation of this ; department of art or technical subject concerned with knowledge of its principles or methods, as opp. to practice ; systematic statement of general principles of some branch of mathematics ; mere hypothesis, conjecture, individual view or notion. theorist n. theorize v."

Have you suggested any other religious viewpoint during the entire course of this debate? Speak, name, define!

Ah, I see. You are using a 'lay' definition of 'theory'. I figured, since we were dealing with science, that you meant a scientifically valid theory. In scientific terms, what you have is baseless assumption.

If you are going to COMPARE scientific to non-scientific, and you intend to use 'lay' definitions where they better suit the non-scientific... you might make mention of the fact.

We know. You have observed the entire history and future and present of everything, have you? Just as we think that it is possible for Time to operate in reverse, we have never encountered this and we do not KNOW whether it is actually the case.

EDIT: Cyclical universe, ding-ding. Fine with me. Possible, I suppose.

I don't think it is possible for time to operate in reverse, and I've seen no reason to suspect it to be the case.

On the other hand, as a scientist, I have 'seen' the evidence of energy trasferred between different forms, and matter converted to energy.

Your parallels are not parallel.

1. Salvation depends on being a good person and acting with the right intentions, no matter what the result. I don't believe that we should have to accept Jesus as our saviour, because what if you were raised without knowledge of Christianity or if it was constantly portrayed in a bad light? You would be a good person and God would realise that and save you.


Here you are both right and wrong. Accepting Jesus and asking for God's forgiveness alone is not enough. You need to continue to live the way that he asks us to, or sincerely try. After all, if you've accepted you are a sinner and have regretted it, then the sensable thing to do would be to try and stop sinning after having accepted that.

http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer24.htm

This is a website regarding those who have never heard


2. You will not get saved simply by acknowledging your faith and taking part in worship or ceremonies; you will have to actively do what you believe is right. If God truly loves us all then he will be more impressed by people who spend their life doing acts of generosity and goodwill than people who spend all their life praying, and showing how much they love God, but not other people.

Indeed, the two great commandments are

"Love the lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbourgh as yourself"

Both are intrinsicly linked. Because all other people are God's creations as well, just like you. So if you love God you will love them because of what they are.


3. Repentance must be done genuinely because you are sorry and are determined to change, not because you fear punishment if you don't. Againg if God exists he will know your reasons for repentance and act accordingly.


Indeed he will.

I´ve been reading dante´s Divina Comedia; and one thing that struck me again as I was reading it that there is a place reserved in hell (according to him) for all the people, be they young, old, man or woman who have never heard of God.

Now I don´t know if this is factually backed up by biblical scripture, but I find the idea that only christians can be good people, and good enough to enter the pearly gates a serious blow to God supposedly loving all his children...

Would Ghandi be in Hell?

Would Ghandi be in Hell?


Of course, Gandhi is in Hell right now. He'll suffer in Satan's firey pits for all eternity for not having the presence of mind to accept Jesus as the Way to the Lord.

To be honest, what I'm sure will be most satisfying is The Rapture; when the faithful get to sit in the clouds and smugly watch all us sinners suffer down below.

Amen to that.

A, God is wise much

Of course, Gandhi is in Hell right now. He'll suffer in Satan's firey pits for all eternity for not having the presence of mind to accept Jesus as the Way to the Lord.

To be honest, what I'm sure will be most satisfying is The Rapture; when the faithful get to sit in the clouds and smugly watch all us sinners suffer down below.

Amen to that.
Smugly?

If that's the kind of attitude you have, we'll find the whole experience pretty satistying too. Some might even consider it a blessing.

Smugly?

If that's the kind of attitude you have, we'll find the whole experience pretty satistying too. Some might even consider it a blessing.

Oh dear. You just revealed a distinctly un-Christian sentiment.

No heaven for you.

This is a personal piece of work that I wanted to share with you. Its an overview of the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I may have shared it here before under another name, but I felt its time to hear it again.

I would apreciate that if there is discussion on this then it would advance beyond the level of "God doesnt exist, your dumb" or "The Bible is wrong, your stupid".
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of oral traditions handed down from father to son for generations. One of these is the Genesis story, which ( IMHO ) is not to be taken literally. When the Bible and scientific evidence are in apparent conflict, it's almost always because someone is trying to take literally a portion of the Bible which was never intended to be taken literally.

Oh dear. You just revealed a distinctly un-Christian sentiment.

No heaven for you.
I'm not a christian; their church rejects my notions of God and their people reject my dislike of piety and righteousness. Which is why I said I'd find the whole experience pretty satisfying; the implication being that getting rid of smug little kids like that would be on the whole a relatively positive result. Most Christians are fine; that statement about enjoying feeling smug in heaven, on the other hand, would be a completely self-absorbed piece of bigotry which the world will be better off without.

Sorry if you missed that.

I'm not a christian. Which is why I said I'd find the whole experience pretty satisfying; the implication being that getting rid of smug little kids like that would be on the whole a relatively positive result. Most Christians are fine; that statement about enjoying feeling smug in heaven, on the other hand, would be a completely self-absorbed piece of bigotry which the world will be better off without.

Sorry if you missed that.

No, that wasn't the implication in your statement. I suggest you re-read it.

No, that wasn't the implication in your statement. I suggest you re-read it.
My apologies (again). I guess I had falsely assumed that my position as an absurd irreligious spiritualist was reasonably well established and that the term "we" would be designated thus appropriately.

I still dislike your sentiment, though. Christians are not generally smug bastards like you suggest. If anyone's deriving amusement from these events, it's me - the outsider, who is both rid of those Christians that suited the stereotype and feels that those who were unjustly labelled by it have been vindicated, thereby severely pissing off the people who did indeed believe that the Christians were merely full of themselves.

It will, indeed, be a blessing for the pompous spiritual gits like myself.

My apologies (again). I guess I had falsely assumed that my position as an absurd irreligious spiritualist was reasonably well established and that the term "we" would be designated thus appropriately.

I still dislike your sentiment, though. Christians are not generally smug bastards like you suggest. If anyone's deriving amusement from these events, it's me - the outsider, who is both rid of those Christians that suited the stereotype and feels that those who were unjustly labelled by it have been vindicated, thereby severely pissing off the people who did indeed believe that the Christians were merely full of themselves.

It will, indeed, be a blessing for the pompous spiritual gits like myself.


Fair enough, I hadn't seen enough of your posts before now to recognise that.

And it was a bit of a joke. In my experience most Christians do have a kind of mild knowing smugness about themselves. Maybe that's been just my experience though.

The theory of evolution says nothing about the 'origins' of 'life'... just the mechanisms by which it might change.

Thus - the origins of 'first life' are irrelevent to the debate of whether 'evolution' is sound.

We can speculate for you, if you like... but it is not actually pertinent to the topic.


Personally, I am willing to accept randomness, coupled with unfeasibly long exposure, as the likely 'origin of life'. Simply put - if you leave chemicals together in an excitable environment, for sufficiently long periods, you are likely to see a broad range of reactions. Some of these reactions are favoured within certain parameters, (sort of a 'chemical evolution, perhaps) and some actually form compounds that are favoured (again, LIKE evolution) over other compounds.

As an example - many compounds are formed in reactions, that actually 'buffer' a reverse reaction.

What you would be looking for, would be a fairly simplistic reaction that formed fairly complex chains of molecules - that, in turn - formed an environment that favoured further similar reactions... even catalysed them.

Given a laboratory the size of a world, an effectively infinite supply of reagents, an effectively boundless access to energy, and an effectively infinite reaction time - sufficiently complex 'self-replicating' molecules become almost INEVITABLE.

One of the biggest problems with your whole concept here is that it depends on a thing called randomness. And randomness, may or may not exist. Sort of like the God issue. If randomness did exist, how would we measure it? What would it look like? Where would we find it? Or has it ceased to exist in our universe?

One of the biggest problems with your whole concept here is that it depends on a thing called randomness. And randomness, may or may not exist. Sort of like the God issue. If randomness did exist, how would we measure it? What would it look like? Where would we find it? Or has it ceased to exist in our universe?

Occam suggests that, if there are two possible explanations, and one is much simpler (requires less stages, or instances of interference) then it is most likely the correct one.

Both Heisenberg and Brownian Motion speak to randomness - although one COULD argue that god, in fact, orchestrates every single motion of every single atom.

But - faced with the choice between such interactions being relatively random, or an interventionist god SO thorough in intervention, that it even manipulates EVERY individual atom, I'm going to have to accept the randomness as more believable.

I really don't see how anyone COULD accept a god with THAT kind of anal-retentive attention to individual atoms, and reconcile it with the image of a god that allows free-will.

If we want to 'observe' randomness, you could try making yourself a cup of tea. Do it the 'teabag-dipped-in-teapot' way, and watch the 'tea' diffuse through the hot water. What you are seeing is 'diffusion', and it is reliant on the principle that 'tea' molecules will eventually encounter EVERY point within your teapot, through random movements (or less random ones, if you stir it...).

That's not what was said.

And the burden of proof is on the believer, because in the absense of evidence we must accept the null hypothesis.

But if you were brought up in a religious family, and you were considering the possibility that God does not exist, despite what you have been taught to believe, then the null hypothesis might be the hypothesis that God does exist. I.e., if we cannot prove that He does not exist, then he probably does.

But if you were brought up in a religious family, and you were considering the possibility that God does not exist, despite what you have been taught to believe, then the null hypothesis might be the hypothesis that God does exist. I.e., if we cannot prove that He does not exist, then he probably does.

I still like the old cliche "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I also believe you are misrepresenting the 'null hypothesis', specifically because of that 'extraordinary' quality of the claim.

By application of the logic you suggest, we must accept that our world is also people by goblins, fairies, unicorns, ghosts and alien visitors.

After all - there is no evidence that those things are NOT here.

But if you were brought up in a religious family, and you were considering the possibility that God does not exist, despite what you have been taught to believe, then the null hypothesis might be the hypothesis that God does exist. I.e., if we cannot prove that He does not exist, then he probably does.
By design the null hyphothesis is usualy defined by the absence not the presence of the studied phenomonon. If you felt like seting up your study in a way to not make sence then yes you could do it the way you proscribed. But you would have to play a game of backwards thinking with your stats ...

Hurts my head even thinking of it

the sort of revelation I would require to convert me would be pretty spectacular, voices from the burning bush etc. And to be honest i'd still be checking for wires. :)

I suspect that a spectacular 'show' wouldn't convince you. Like you said, you would still be looking for the invisible wiring. I think it would have to be something really deep inside you. But of course, this would mean that you couldn't use this proof to convince anyone else. Therefore, you could not call it proof. Ironically, the only thing that could convince you of God's existence is perhaps the very thing that you could not use to convince anyone else of God's existence.


why is saying that descent with modification and selection acceptable, but inadequate to produce complex life forms. With a secular scientific veiwpoint we aren't constrained to fitting all of this gradual change into under 10000 years. There is a vast depth of time to work with and the cumulative effect of untold billions of tiny alterations each having an almost imperceptable advantage to the organism in its environment at the time is a perfectly plausible explanation for the development of higher vertebrates from very simple organisms. it also helpfully accounts for many observable instances of "bad design" in nature, with vestigal limbs in pythons, the fagility of the human skull and many others being much harder to reconcile with the existence of a mystical and infallible creator.

We don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. Consider the existence of the (current) universe as 24 h. If you look at the evolutionary time lines, eukaryotes have only been around the last few minutes. And the distance from the first eurkaryote to humans is considerable. It would look like progress was marching along at a snappy rate. Consider that this all has to fit in with our sun, the energy levels of which could not have sustained life on earth for an infinite length of time. We have some pretty serious limitations to fit the evolutionary story in. It is possible that it all happened through a process of randomness? Actually, we don't even know if it is possible. We can't say. We don't even know if there is any randomness in this universe. Based on what we do know about our current world, the laws of thermodynamics and soforth, I would call it unlikely. And since I believe in God (before I tried to figure out where life and the universe came from) it seems rational to me that God had something to do with it.

Also, the 'bad design' argument is quite silly, since we do not yet know all of the possible uses for these designs. If circumstances have changed, old designs may be outdated, but that does not mean that they always were. To argue that some part of nature is badly designed because it no longer serves a purpose smacks of arrogance, to say the least.

We don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. Consider the existence of the (current) universe as 24 h. If you look at the evolutionary time lines, eukaryotes have only been around the last few minutes. And the distance from the first eurkaryote to humans is considerable. It would look like progress was marching along at a snappy rate. Consider that this all has to fit in with our sun, the energy levels of which could not have sustained life on earth for an infinite length of time. We have some pretty serious limitations to fit the evolutionary story in. It is possible that it all happened through a process of randomness? Actually, we don't even know if it is possible. We can't say. We don't even know if there is any randomness in this universe. Based on what we do know about our current world, the laws of thermodynamics and soforth, I would call it unlikely. And since I believe in God (before I tried to figure out where life and the universe came from) it seems rational to me that God had something to do with it.

Also, the 'bad design' argument is quite silly, since we do not yet know all of the possible uses for these designs. If circumstances have changed, old designs may be outdated, but that does not mean that they always were. To argue that some part of nature is badly designed because it no longer serves a purpose smacks of arrogance, to say the least.

The amount of time doesn't HAVE to be 'infinite'... but hundreds of millions of years IS 'effectively' infinite for most chemical or physical reactions

Also - your idea of the sun as inconstant, is irrelevent. It is neither the ONLY source of energy, nor required to BE constant, in order to 'foster' life. You might want to look at some of the extremes just here on earth, to find how versatile 'life' seems to be.

As to your 'snappy' rate - how is that a bad thing, or a strike against? The Young Earth Creationists tell of an even SNAPPIER rate, surely? Given the presence of radioactives, and their observed mutagenic effects, it is not hard to believe that evolution IS a rapid process, when the conditions favour it.

Regarding the claim: "We don't even know if there is any randomness in this universe. Based on what we do know about our current world, the laws of thermodynamics and soforth, I would call it unlikely..." I would have to say, this is just one more example of your apparently poor grasp on science - since there is no way in which the 'laws of thermodynamics' oppose the idea of randomness.

At least you are willing to admit, however, that your bias towards the conditioning you received has left you incapable of objectively making such distinctions.

I still like the old cliche "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I also believe you are misrepresenting the 'null hypothesis', specifically because of that 'extraordinary' quality of the claim.

By application of the logic you suggest, we must accept that our world is also people by goblins, fairies, unicorns, ghosts and alien visitors.

After all - there is no evidence that those things are NOT here.

The extraordinary claim, I suggest, is the one that you are least familiar with. Just like the idea that the world is round might have seemed extraordinary to some. That you find the claim of God's existence to be extraordinary comes out of your current world view, not mine.

And, no, my logic does not suggest that we must accept fairies, etc., Mr. Strawman.





By design the null hyphothesis is usualy defined by the absence not the presence of the studied phenomonon. If you felt like seting up your study in a way to not make sence then yes you could do it the way you proscribed. But you would have to play a game of backwards thinking with your stats ...


Usually? I would say that we are already in an unusual situation (for the null hypothesis).

The original poster was approaching the issue of God's existence from the point of his/her own subjective opinion. He/she finds the non-existence of God to be the null hypothesis, because of where he or she was coming from. I was simply applying the same approach from my own subjective opinion.

It might look backwards to people who do not share my point of view, but that is perhaps because of their point of view.





Hurts my head even thinking of it


That's probably evidence that you are thinking.

The extraordinary claim, I suggest, is the one that you are least familiar with.


No - the extraordinary claim is the one which requires the most assumptions to be made, or that requires (if only one assumption were to be made) the most extreme assumption.


Just like the idea that the world is round might have seemed extraordinary to some. That you find the claim of God's existence to be extraordinary comes out of your current world view, not mine.


Nonsense. The null hypothesis for many cultures would actually have favoured a round earth, because they grew on coastlines, where the 'horizon' effect can be seen.

For 'inland' cultures, the null hypothesis would favour a different world shape.

Now that we have a 'global' culture, even without satellite evidence, the null hypothesis favours the round earth theory, because even 'inland' cultures are exposed to the knowledge of the horizon effect at sea.


And, no, my logic does not suggest that we must accept fairies, etc., Mr. Strawman.


Yes it does. If you are arguing that one NEEDS evidence that a thing does NOT exist to assume that, then fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny, and that famous invisible pink unicorn are JUST as valid, and logically equal to, your 'god'.

Not to mention, of course, that you must also admit that all OTHER gods are true, if you are going to allow such 'logic'.

The original poster was approaching the issue of God's existence from the point of his/her own subjective opinion. He/she finds the non-existence of God to be the null hypothesis, because of where he or she was coming from.

Actually - the original poster seems to be basing their understanding of the null hypothesis on the fact that 'god' requires more assumptions to be made than 'no god'... which, I must admit, sounds like a truer understanding of the 'null hypothesis' than this 'subjective' version you seem to wish to peddle.

The amount of time doesn't HAVE to be 'infinite'... but hundreds of millions of years IS 'effectively' infinite for most chemical or physical reactions

But we are not talking about simple chemical and physical reactions. We are talking about the construction of nervous systems, of chemical languages between species, even between prokaryotes and eukaryotes (e.g. symbiosis). Life itself is vastly complex. My point is that when you try to place particular points in the evolutionary story on a time line, you end up stretching things to incredible lengths to get them to fit in the scale.


Also - your idea of the sun as inconstant, is irrelevent. It is neither the ONLY source of energy, nor required to BE constant, in order to 'foster' life. You might want to look at some of the extremes just here on earth, to find how versatile 'life' seems to be.

The extremes we might find on earth pale in comparison to those found on other planets. I don't expect DNA and RNA to function much out of the extremes that we currently find them, e.g. the thermophiles.


As to your 'snappy' rate - how is that a bad thing, or a strike against? The Young Earth Creationists tell of an even SNAPPIER rate, surely? Given the presence of radioactives, and their observed mutagenic effects, it is not hard to believe that evolution IS a rapid process, when the conditions favour it.

Where evolution involves a loss of information/function, it can indeed be a rapid thing. However, the rise of new information leading to the occurrence of new functional organs or other such features such as flagella has not only never been observed, but no one would describe it as quick. The development of human consciousness, for example, such a complicated thing that we still cannot describe it at a molecular level, has only about 100,000 years to develop from the sort of consciousness that we find in animals.


Regarding the claim: "We don't even know if there is any randomness in this universe. Based on what we do know about our current world, the laws of thermodynamics and soforth, I would call it unlikely..." I would have to say, this is just one more example of your apparently poor grasp on science - since there is no way in which the 'laws of thermodynamics' oppose the idea of randomness.

The 'it' that I was referring to was the evolutionary story of man developing from a simple life form. And I was never saying that the 'laws of thermodynamics oppose the idea of randomness. What I was saying is that we don't even know if randomness exists, so invoking randomness as a cause is no better than invoking God. Since we cannot test for randomness, and we cannot demonstrate that it exists, anyone could argue that it does not exist. One of those 'null hypothesis' situations.


At least you are willing to admit, however, that your bias towards the conditioning you received has left you incapable of objectively making such distinctions.

Sure, I'm also willing to point out that no one is free from bias at this point, including yourself.

Point out flaws in my current belief system and I shall attempt to justify them also. However, you cannot expect me to fulfil what I cannot, such as showing you the moment of creation.

Anyway, how can a universe, which does not yet exist, cause itself to come into being if it is not there? That was my response to the question. Next, please.
Ok then, flaws.
How did God come into existence?
How do you account for the discrepancy between the time of creation given in the Bible (a short time ago, geologically speaking) and the time shown by science?
Can God violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If so, isn't this a paradox? And if so, doesn't that mean that God is wholly omnipotent and can do the logically impossible, like giving us free will AND making it so that we would never sin? Doesn't that mean that God is NOT good?

But we are not talking about simple chemical and physical reactions. We are talking about the construction of nervous systems, of chemical languages between species, even between prokaryotes and eukaryotes (e.g. symbiosis). Life itself is vastly complex. My point is that when you try to place particular points in the evolutionary story on a time line, you end up stretching things to incredible lengths to get them to fit in the scale.


No - we ARE talking about simple chemical and physical reactions.

Wasn't the bone of contention here 'how life started'?

Are we not debating the probability of life starting at all.

Complex structures are not hard to build, ONCE you have the building blocks. The rate-determining-step MUST be the formation of those blocks. Anything after that is 'cake'.


The extremes we might find on earth pale in comparison to those found on other planets. I don't expect DNA and RNA to function much out of the extremes that we currently find them, e.g. the thermophiles.


Whici is irrelevent to the formation of the original simple molecules, or the slightly more complex 'replication-favouring' molecules I was discussing.


Where evolution involves a loss of information/function, it can indeed be a rapid thing. However, the rise of new information leading to the occurrence of new functional organs or other such features such as flagella has not only never been observed, but no one would describe it as quick. The development of human consciousness, for example, such a complicated thing that we still cannot describe it at a molecular level, has only about 100,000 years to develop from the sort of consciousness that we find in animals.


You are speculating. 'Consciousness' as you term it, COULD simply be a symbiotic interaction with many iterations. A 'fractal' LOOKS complex, but it isn't, really.


The 'it' that I was referring to was the evolutionary story of man developing from a simple life form. And I was never saying that the 'laws of thermodynamics oppose the idea of randomness. What I was saying is that we don't even know if randomness exists, so invoking randomness as a cause is no better than invoking God. Since we cannot test for randomness, and we cannot demonstrate that it exists, anyone could argue that it does not exist. One of those 'null hypothesis' situations.


Except that a simple roll of the dice favours the null hypothesis assumption that randomness DOES exist.


Sure, I'm also willing to point out that no one is free from bias at this point, including yourself.

The relevence being? You KNOW you are biased, and you choose to operate WITH that bias, rather than attempt to be objective. Of course I'm not FREE of bias, but my objectivity is as mountains are to molehills, next to your own.

What I was saying is that we don't even know if randomness exists, so invoking randomness as a cause is no better than invoking God. Since we cannot test for randomness, and we cannot demonstrate that it exists, anyone could argue that it does not exist. One of those 'null hypothesis' situations.


This is the particular bit I have trouble with. Randomness is one of the few things in life that we can be sure does exist. Chance, hazard, circumstance; however you define it, it is one of the foundations of the human experience. Even God plays dice remember?



Sure, I'm also willing to point out that no one is free from bias at this point, including yourself.


Everyone has some bias, but your particular bias is forcing you into making illogical, sometimes false, assertions.

Science advances year-on-year, it refines, corrects and even disproves itself. People who claim to support it are always open to new ideas and better ways of explaining things.

On the other hand, you appear to view the universe and everything in it through a particular frame of reference (which you only acquired by chance by the way) that will not even submit to serious questioning, let alone consider the very real possibility that it might be wrong.

The extremes we might find on earth pale in comparison to those found on other planets. I don't expect DNA and RNA to function much out of the extremes that we currently find them, e.g. the thermophiles.
Life might function differently on other planets, though.

Where evolution involves a loss of information/function, it can indeed be a rapid thing. However, the rise of new information leading to the occurrence of new functional organs or other such features such as flagella has not only never been observed, but no one would describe it as quick. The development of human consciousness, for example, such a complicated thing that we still cannot describe it at a molecular level, has only about 100,000 years to develop from the sort of consciousness that we find in animals.
Read a book on animal consciousness, for example "Wild Minds" by Marc Hauser. Animal consciousness, as a matter of fact, is actually very close to ours in certain respects - they can understand abstract concepts, for example. And this is in creatures like rodents and birds, not in more intelligent ones like apes. Also, to be honest, I think human consciousness has had more time than that, probably a million years since we left ape-level. Of course we haven't seen evolution happen, because it is so slow in our terms. There are probably about 100,000 generations since we came down from the trees. Recorded history has had, what, 400?

No - the extraordinary claim is the one which requires the most assumptions to be made, or that requires (if only one assumption were to be made) the most extreme assumption.

The extreme assumption might be that God does not exist. It just depends on where you are coming from.



Nonsense. The null hypothesis for many cultures would actually have favoured a round earth, because they grew on coastlines, where the 'horizon' effect can be seen.

For 'inland' cultures, the null hypothesis would favour a different world shape.

Now that we have a 'global' culture, even without satellite evidence, the null hypothesis favours the round earth theory, because even 'inland' cultures are exposed to the knowledge of the horizon effect at sea.


You probably can't say the word 'actually', since this appears to be your speculation. If you were to replace the word 'actually' with 'probably', I might have left this comment go. As it is, you seem to be pulling stuff like this out of your self-confidence.

Anyway, didn't many cultures who lived on the coast, like Spain and Portugal, think that the world was flat and Christopher C. was mad for going in the 'wrong' direction to reach Asia?


Yes it does. If you are arguing that one NEEDS evidence that a thing does NOT exist to assume that, then fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny, and that famous invisible pink unicorn are JUST as valid, and logically equal to, your 'god'.


No. You are not getting it. I said that if you were brought up to believe in something, by the time you get to the 'age of reason', questioning the existence of that something becomes a journey. The journey moves from believing in the existence of X to the possibility of the non-existence of X. The X can apply to God or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. There comes a point at which the existence should be questioned. One need not accept that it must not be questioned. Good parents will know this and encourage their children to make good choices, albeit their own choices.

For example, my parents never taught me that Santa Claus was real, thus I would tend to approach the existence of Santa Claus with skepticism. I would tend to go for the null hypothesis which says that SC is not real. However, my parents did raise me to believe that God was real, and they lived their lives accordingly. Thus, by the time I was old enough to ask my own questions, it seemed more likely that God was real than that He wasn't. Thus I approached this question from exactly the opposite side as you would currently. Since then, I have come to find proof enough for God's existence. (Perhaps not proof for others, but proof enough for myself.) Thus, I still currently approach the question for God's existence from the point of view that considers God's existence to be more likely.



Not to mention, of course, that you must also admit that all OTHER gods are true, if you are going to allow such 'logic'.


Not at all. They *may* be true, since I cannot prove that they do or do not exist. I remain skeptical of their existence, but willing to be shown otherwise.


Actually - the original poster seems to be basing their understanding of the null hypothesis on the fact that 'god' requires more assumptions to be made than 'no god'... which, I must admit, sounds like a truer understanding of the 'null hypothesis' than this 'subjective' version you seem to wish to peddle.

Once again, it 'sounds' so because of your point of view. Can it be that you cannot step out of your point of view?

No. You are not getting it. I said that if you were brought up to believe in something, by the time you get to the 'age of reason', questioning the existence of that something becomes a journey. The journey moves from believing in the existence of X to the possibility of the non-existence of X. The X can apply to God or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. There comes a point at which the existence should be questioned. One need not accept that it must not be questioned. Good parents will know this and encourage their children to make good choices, albeit their own choices.


On the contrary, if there's anyone who's 'not getting it' here it's not him.



For example, my parents never taught me that Santa Claus was real, thus I would tend to approach the existence of Santa Claus with skepticism. I would tend to go for the null hypothesis which says that SC is not real. However, my parents did raise me to believe that God was real, and they lived their lives accordingly. Thus, by the time I was old enough to ask my own questions, it seemed more likely that God was real than that He wasn't. Thus I approached this question from exactly the opposite side as you would currently. Since then, I have come to find proof enough for God's existence. (Perhaps not proof for others, but proof enough for myself.) Thus, I still currently approach the question for God's existence from the point of view that considers God's existence to be more likely.




You really don't seem to understand how ridiculous and child-like this argument is. It has absolutely no merit.

And, additionally, how exactly is the nature of your upbringing, and your consequent belief in God, not a chance event?



Once again, it 'sounds' so because of your point of view. Can it be that you cannot step out of your point of view?

I would say, pot meet kettle. But it hardly seems appropriate as you're the only one being hypocritical here.

This is the particular bit I have trouble with. Randomness is one of the few things in life that we can be sure does exist. Chance, hazard, circumstance; however you define it, it is one of the foundations of the human experience. Even God plays dice remember?

I think you and I need to come to terms with what randomness is. Let me start by saying that the roll of the dice is not depending on randomness whatsoever. Every number that turns up depends on the total of the forces exerted on the dice. For every effect, there is a cause. We think of it as random, but we really mean that it is too complicated to calculate.

Where you find an effect that has no cause, there you would find randomness. And since science depends on the assumption that for every effect there is a cause, it has to be one of the most basic assumptions ever know to man. Even before science, when people attributed sickness or earthquakes to the 'gods', they were already searching for a cause for the visible effects.





Everyone has some bias, but your particular bias is forcing you into making illogical, sometimes false, assertions.

Is that your bias saying that?


Science advances year-on-year, it refines, corrects and even disproves itself. People who claim to support it are always open to new ideas and better ways of explaining things.


How is that relevant?


On the other hand, you appear to view the universe and everything in it through a particular frame of reference (which you only acquired by chance by the way) that will not even submit to serious questioning, let alone consider the very real possibility that it might be wrong.

What you don't seem to realize is that you certainly did not acquire your world view by chance, since it could be explained by your upbringing, your choices in life, your friends, the books you read, the music you like, etc.
As for claiming that my world view will not submit to serious questioning, I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea of my life or how I came to my world view. Absolutely none at all, except for what I might have posted. You are indeed quite ignorant.

Life might function differently on other planets, though.

It might, indeed, but that 'might' should not be a pillar in anyone's argument for the plausibility of the 'atheistic story'.


Read a book on animal consciousness, for example "Wild Minds" by Marc Hauser. Animal consciousness, as a matter of fact, is actually very close to ours in certain respects - they can understand abstract concepts, for example. And this is in creatures like rodents and birds, not in more intelligent ones like apes. Also, to be honest, I think human consciousness has had more time than that, probably a million years since we left ape-level. Of course we haven't seen evolution happen, because it is so slow in our terms. There are probably about 100,000 generations since we came down from the trees. Recorded history has had, what, 400?

Yes, I also find animal consciousness to be quite interesting. Particularly when we get a variety of animals that seem to have as much if not more than apes, e.g. dolphins.


Not seeing evolution happen is not a proof against evolution, nor evidence for evolution. It is only consistent with it, since we expect that our lives are too short to see it happen.

On the contrary, if there's anyone who's 'not getting it' here it's not him.






You really don't seem to understand how ridiculous and child-like this argument is. It has absolutely no merit.

And, additionally, how exactly is the nature of your upbringing, and your consequent belief in God, not a chance event?




I would say, pot meet kettle. But it hardly seems appropriate as you're the only one being hypocritical here.

An intelligent person does not need to resort to insults.

My belief in God is not a chance event, because it has to do with who my parents are. The family that I was born into determined, e.g., who I would meet in my life. This has influenced my choices. The 'me' that I am depends partly on the sperm and egg of my parents coming together. This was not a chance event, but a planned one. It has to do with them 'falling in love' as young adults. The event of them meeting each other for the first time has to do with their life choices, which in turn is influenced by their parents, which in turn depends on the choices and circumstances of the preceeding set of parents. There is no randomness here, since every effect has a cause. When we call it chance, we don't mean that it was random, but that the sum of influencing forces, or causes, are too complicated to predict and is furthermore outside of our control.

And since science depends on the assumption that for every effect there is a cause...

Does it really? Are you sure about that?



Even before science....


Like this statement even makes sense...




Is that your bias saying that?


No, it's a reflection on evidence. You refuse to except that your argument can equally be applied to the existence of fairies, invisible dragons, etc. This has been presented to you and you have failed to address it.



How is that relevant?


Oh dear, please try to follow the structure of an argument or there's really no point is there?



What you don't seem to realize is that you certainly did not acquire your world view by chance, since it could be explained by your upbringing, your choices in life, your friends, the books you read, the music you like, etc.
As for claiming that my world view will not submit to serious questioning, I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea of my life or how I came to my world view. Absolutely none at all, except for what I might have posted. You are indeed quite ignorant.

Ha Ha

I did acquire my world view by chance. How exactly do you think I acquired my life in the first place?

Will you concede that it is likely (in terms of probability) that God does not exist? If not, my accusation stands.

And you are, indeed, evidently out of ideas.

An intelligent person does not need to resort to insults.



You are indeed quite ignorant


Says it all really.

Does it really? Are you sure about that?
Yes, for every effect, there is a cause. Do you believe otherwise?



No, it's a reflection on evidence. You refuse to except that your argument can equally be applied to the existence of fairies, invisible dragons, etc. This has been presented to you and you have failed to address it.


You forgot to mention that it could also be applied to the popular evolution myth.






Ha Ha

I did acquire my world view by chance. How exactly do you think I acquired my life in the first place?


I'm not sure that I believe you. Since this is your assertion, the burden of evidence lies on you. If you can't prove that you acquired your world view and your life by chance, at least you ought to provide some sensible reasons for this assertion. Then we can all look at them and decide for ourselves. But before you begin, I suggest you define what chance is. If you wish to use a dictionary version, that is fine, but at least provide one.


Will you concede that it is likely (in terms of probability) that God does not exist? If not, my accusation stands.


If I didn't have my personal experience (i.e. my proof) of God to rely on, I might concede that there is an equal probability that God does not exist. Not sure about that one. But as sure as I am typing this, I know God exists and am more certain about His existence than I am about, oh, I don't know, anything?

Says it all really.

When I said you were ignorant, it was in the context of your assuming that my world view does not allow questions. Since my world view not only allows questions and even encourages them, your assumption was quite wrong. So it was not an insult, but a statement containing truth. If you want to defend yourself, you would have to demonstrate how my world view does not allow questions.

So, I put it to you. Do you think you are ignorant?

So, I put it to you. Do you think you are ignorant?
<interjection>

Nobody thinks they are ignorant. To hold one's self to be ignorant is to know about things that they do not know, so the fact that one knows that such things may exist lets them think that they have knowledge about them and thus are above the ignorance labelling.

But what exactly does this have to do with anything?

</interjection>

Yes, for every effect, there is a cause. Do you believe otherwise?


I'm not one of those depressingly stupid, naive people who believe that 'everything happens for a reason, yeah', if that's what you mean?



You forgot to mention that it could also be applied to the popular evolution myth.


This is priceless. Please expand on this myth as I'm sure the result will be very amusing.



I'm not sure that I believe you. Since this is your assertion, the burden of evidence lies on you. If you can't prove that you acquired your world view and your life by chance, at least you ought to provide some sensible reasons for this assertion. Then we can all look at them and decide for ourselves. But before you begin, I suggest you define what chance is. If you wish to use a dictionary version, that is fine, but at least provide one.


No it doesn't. You have asserted that every effect has a cause. I believe that it does not. We've already been over this shit haven't we?



If I didn't have my personal experience (i.e. my proof) of God to rely on, I might concede that there is an equal probability that God does not exist. Not sure about that one. But as sure as I am typing this, I know God exists and am more certain about His existence than I am about, oh, I don't know, anything?


So you agree, you will not question your position because you know God exists. Well, how much less fucking scientific can you get? Wait a minute, that's your problem in the first place isn't it?

I, on the other hand, am perfectly willing to concede that 'God' (whatever that means) may exist. I just don't think, on the basis of rational, intelligent and above all, objective analysis that 'he' does.

It might, indeed, but that 'might' should not be a pillar in anyone's argument for the plausibility of the 'atheistic story'.
As it's only speculation, we can't know. It's not a pillar of any argument, merely it's against the point someone made that DNA couldn't work on other planets and so evolution can't be true. Evolution explains how things work here, not necessarily elsewhere where we have no experience.

Not seeing evolution happen is not a proof against evolution, nor evidence for evolution. It is only consistent with it, since we expect that our lives are too short to see it happen.
Once again, I'm not claiming it as proof, merely showing the flaw in the logic of something whih was posted that claimed that because we hadn't seen evolution happen, it couldn't be true.

Oh, and the way, in 1492, the prevailing world view was that the earth was round. A lot of history books (mainly schoolbooks) are wrong on this point.

The extreme assumption might be that God does not exist. It just depends on where you are coming from.


Not at all - no matter how many times you protest it.

Let us check the assumptions:

The Non-God-Dependent Model: The world is just the way it is because it is just the way it is.

One assumption. (We may try to work the mechanisms, but, fundamentally, our assumption is that it 'has just turned out that way').

The Religious Position: The world is as it is, because god made it so. Not only that - but it is MY god, with all the little assumptions that acoompany that big one. Not only that - but it is MY god, as it is detailed in MY book, with all the little assumptions that go with THAT).


The religious position can NEVER be the 'null hypothesis'.



You probably can't say the word 'actually', since this appears to be your speculation. If you were to replace the word 'actually' with 'probably', I might have left this comment go. As it is, you seem to be pulling stuff like this out of your self-confidence.


It is not speculation. Coastal cultures can witness the horizon phenomenon. I assume you have been to 'the coast'?


Anyway, didn't many cultures who lived on the coast, like Spain and Portugal, think that the world was flat and Christopher C. was mad for going in the 'wrong' direction to reach Asia?


Some may have, yes. There are still people today that believe the Earth is flat. What does this have to do with anything?


No. You are not getting it. I said that if you were brought up to believe in something, by the time you get to the 'age of reason', questioning the existence of that something becomes a journey. The journey moves from believing in the existence of X to the possibility of the non-existence of X. The X can apply to God or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. There comes a point at which the existence should be questioned. One need not accept that it must not be questioned. Good parents will know this and encourage their children to make good choices, albeit their own choices.

For example, my parents never taught me that Santa Claus was real, thus I would tend to approach the existence of Santa Claus with skepticism. I would tend to go for the null hypothesis which says that SC is not real. However, my parents did raise me to believe that God was real, and they lived their lives accordingly. Thus, by the time I was old enough to ask my own questions, it seemed more likely that God was real than that He wasn't. Thus I approached this question from exactly the opposite side as you would currently. Since then, I have come to find proof enough for God's existence. (Perhaps not proof for others, but proof enough for myself.) Thus, I still currently approach the question for God's existence from the point of view that considers God's existence to be more likely.


And again - you fail to comprehend the 'null hypothesis'. An absence of belief in something that cannot be empirically supported will ALWAYS be the preferential model in the null hypothesis. It really IS that simple.



Not at all. They *may* be true, since I cannot prove that they do or do not exist. I remain skeptical of their existence, but willing to be shown otherwise.


I doubt this is true. If it were, you would be a curious breed of Christian, since scripture specifically speaks against what you are claiming.


Once again, it 'sounds' so because of your point of view. Can it be that you cannot step out of your point of view?

No.

I doubt this is true. If it were, you would be a curious breed of Christian, since scripture specifically speaks against what you are claiming.



What's wrong with believing that other gods don't exist but admitting that you don't know it for a fact?

What's wrong with believing that other gods don't exist but admitting that you don't know it for a fact?

I don't know... what? (After all, that IS, effectively, the Atheists psoition).

Unless - of course, this is supposed to be a comment on what I said to Braurong - in which case, I fear you are sadly misrepresenting what [i]he]/i] said.

Misinterpreting, maybe. Feel free to set me straight.

Misinterpreting, maybe. Feel free to set me straight.

There is a big difference between the Christian claiming to be 'skeptical' about other gods, and the Christian claiming not to believe in other gods.

How did God come into existence?

He didn't. He exists outside time. He created time. He did not come into existance


How do you account for the discrepancy between the time of creation given in the Bible (a short time ago, geologically speaking) and the time shown by science?

There are some discrepencies in the scientific analysis of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon


Can God violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If so, isn't this a paradox?

God created the universe and so part of it was the second law of themodynamics. So he wouldnt break it if it was an intrigal part of his creation. He has the power to create a universe without it if thats what you mean


And if so, doesn't that mean that God is wholly omnipotent and can do the logically impossible, like giving us free will AND making it so that we would never sin? Doesn't that mean that God is NOT good?

The Bible doesnt say that God is omnipotent, for example it says God cannot lie. And it is impossible to make us have free will and so that we would never sin, because they are contradictory. Its like creating something that can travel at 300MPH but not above 2KPH. Its contradictory

He didn't. He exists outside time. He created time. He did not come into existance


Brilliant. Astounding logic, well no-one can argue with that can they? :rolleyes:



There are some discrepencies in the scientific analysis of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon


It's interesting that you believe posting links to laughable, biased sources actually helps your argument as opposed to weakening it.

<interjection>

Nobody thinks they are ignorant. To hold one's self to be ignorant is to know about things that they do not know, so the fact that one knows that such things may exist lets them think that they have knowledge about them and thus are above the ignorance labelling.

But what exactly does this have to do with anything?

</interjection>

Here's the thing, though, that if you were to ask me what it is like to give birth (i.e. from first hand experience), I will willingly confess that I am ignorant, and always will be (thank God). I know that I don't know. And not just about birth. In fact, I reckon that it's not too hard for anyone to see that when it comes to knowing all the facts of the universe, the combined knowledge of all of mankind is probably a mere fraction. Thus, we know that we don't know.

If, however, someone cannot admit that they are ignorant, they are even more ignorant than they imagined, IMO.

I called a poster ignorant because they were claiming that my world view does not allow questions. I replied that they had little idea about my world view, and that they were ignorant. He/she took it as an insult. So I demonstrated that it was actually true, not an insult. Not only are we all ignorant to some degree (and we should know this), but this person was especially wrong about my personal world view, which not only allows questions, but encourages them in the search for truth.

But organised religion is, all to often, unwilling to ALLOW there to be a co-existence.

Take Intelligent Design, for example. It is NOT scientific. It fails to fulfill even the most BASIC requirements of adhering to the scientific method - and yet, religious fundamentalists are trying their hardest to have it wedged into the 'science' syllabus.

That is not co-existence.

That is - to co-existence (between religion and science), what rape is to kissing.

And so too does science (at least, some branches of it).

And science fundamentalists are trying their hardest to have scientific theories wedged into the 'religious' syllabus. Why should intelligent design, and omnipotence for that matter, be bound by the rules of language?

Science and religion are a very diverse and rich combination and can exist with each other.

And what a disgusting simile!

Ah, I see. You are using a 'lay' definition of 'theory'. I figured, since we were dealing with science, that you meant a scientifically valid theory. In scientific terms, what you have is baseless assumption.

If you are going to COMPARE scientific to non-scientific, and you intend to use 'lay' definitions where they better suit the non-scientific... you might make mention of the fact.

Excuse me, in a thread entitled "My personal overview of the Christian faith" I am not allowed to suggest religious theories? I was refuting your erroneous statement in which you claimed that Genesis was not a theory. You were the one who failed to specify which definition of the word you were using. Also, the definition you stated was also erroneous as a theory does not have to be based upon observation.

Evolution and Genesis can be compared as a red jumper and a green jumper are compared. They are both theories, but they are of different hue.

I don't think it is possible for time to operate in reverse, and I've seen no reason to suspect it to be the case.

On the other hand, as a scientist, I have 'seen' the evidence of energy trasferred between different forms, and matter converted to energy.

Your parallels are not parallel.

Time is too complex a medium to understand at this present moment in Time. However, recent questions have been asked in academic circles about the possibility of Time reversal and the answers given were, for now, that there was no reason to think that it could not happen.

Just as you have 'seen' evidence to support one theory, so I have 'seen' evidence to support another. We cannot share these personal experiences unless we speak of them now, can we? And then, of course, one party doubts the other and vice versa and we get nowhere.

Ok then, flaws.
How did God come into existence?
How do you account for the discrepancy between the time of creation given in the Bible (a short time ago, geologically speaking) and the time shown by science?
Can God violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If so, isn't this a paradox? And if so, doesn't that mean that God is wholly omnipotent and can do the logically impossible, like giving us free will AND making it so that we would never sin? Doesn't that mean that God is NOT good?

1. God is the uncaused cause and, therefore, has no need to come into existence as He already exists. I think that sums up it up in a nutshell.

2. The time shown by scientists? I don't think so. Whereas science says "the universe was formed x million years ago", does the Bible say so? It has never done so when I've read it.

3. The problem is one of language, not God's omnipotence. For example, here's another: can God create a shape that is both 100% red and 100% white? The answer, naturally, is "no", but only because of our understanding of language and mathematics, in which 100% is a whole.

Says it all really.

Insults are not acceptable and the incident which you yourself quoted is in line with an opinion already expressed on this thread, that is that Man has barely tapped the enormous supplies of knowledge in the universe. Thus, you, I and anyone with a few hours to spare is quite ignorant of knowledge. Might this be what the gentleman is trying to express?

Brilliant. Astounding logic, well no-one can argue with that can they? :rolleyes:

Well if God created time then it stands to reason he exists outside of it which means that he cannot have come into existance in the way we understand it (IE a clear begining, middle and end)


It's interesting that you believe posting links to laughable, biased sources actually helps your argument as opposed to weakening it.

Its interesting that you believe that merely laughing at my sources (as opposed to discussing the content) actually helps your arguement as opposed to weakening it.

He didn't. He exists outside time. He created time. He did not come into existance

Forgive me, but..
Since Gods existance cant even be proven, how can you say he "exists outside time".
Thats a bold statement for any physicist, and Im willing to bet thats not your occupation.

What drew you to this conclusion?

Forgive me, but..
Since Gods existance cant even be proven, how can you say he "exists outside time".
Thats a bold statement for any physicist, and Im willing to bet thats not your occupation.

What drew you to this conclusion?

If He doesn't exist within this universe ( since He created it ), He must necessarily exist within another space-time continuum, provided He exists. Otherwise, Causality breaks down.

The existence of God is beyond proof, or disprove.
If it were verifiable, there would be absolute no point in religion.

Forgive me, but..
Since Gods existance cant even be proven, how can you say he "exists outside time".
Thats a bold statement for any physicist, and Im willing to bet thats not your occupation.

What drew you to this conclusion?

Um...no, it's not a bold statement. Definition of God: Creator of the universe. Time didn't exist before the universe began. But God supposedly existed before the universe began. Therefore, God exists outside of time. Not bold at all. It's logical.

If He doesn't exist within this universe ( since He created it ), He must necessarily exist within another space-time continuum, provided He exists. Otherwise, Causality breaks down.

The existence of God is beyond proof, or disprove.
If it were verifiable, there would be absolute no point in religion.


Ah..

So why then, if it is equally unverifiable, does anyone bother?
Why doesnt the same logic apply to the reverse?

Since all anyone can do is endlessly speculate about religion, and never obtain a single iota of proof that the very thing they surrender to, actually exists, beyond that wich they convince themselves into experiencing, why then does anyone bother to do it?

If He doesn't exist within this universe ( since He created it ), He must necessarily exist within another space-time continuum, provided He exists. Otherwise, Causality breaks down.

The existence of God is beyond proof, or disprove.
If it were verifiable, there would be absolute no point in religion.

Not necessarily. Religion isn't just about blind belief that God exists. It's also about having faith in Gods will and praising him for his creation. At least thats what I've understood.

Um...no, it's not a bold statement. Definition of God: Creator of the universe. Time didn't exist before the universe began. But God supposedly existed before the universe began. Therefore, God exists outside of time. Not bold at all. It's logical.


Hmm..

Since we have far more evidence to suggest that other universes may exist, or even different timelines than in gods existance...I would say its a very bold statement to suggest that ours was the first and only, and was created by God, or that God existed before time.

Time may have already started before we got here.

Ah..

So why then, if it is equally unverifiable, does anyone bother?
Why doesnt the same logic apply to the reverse?

Since all anyone can do is endlessly speculate about religion, and never obtain a single iota of proof that the very thing they surrender to, actually exists, beyond that wich they convince themselves into experiencing, why then does anyone bother to do it?

You do realise that people aren't cold logical machines right? We don't care about logic, most of us anyway. All humanity is concerned with is satisfying our wants. We just want love and friendship and security. God provides all of those. Because we need these things to function, people will ignore logic and rationality so that they can be happy. There isn't a single person out there that is religious because it's logical, people are religious because they need to be.

You do realise that people aren't cold logical machines right? We don't care about logic, most of us anyway. All humanity is concerned with is satisfying our wants. We just want love and friendship and security. God provides all of those. Because we need these things to function, people will ignore logic and rationality so that they can be happy. There isn't a single person out there that is religious because it's logical, people are religious because they need to be.


So, you believe in God, becuase you want to...

Not becuase it makes any logical sense.

Gotcha.

Hmm..

Since we have far more evidence to suggest that other universes may exist, or even different timelines than in gods existance...I would say its a very bold statement to suggest that ours was the first and only, and was created by God, or that God existed before time.

Time may have already started before we got here.

No. God, by definition, was the first cause. If there is a universe outside of ours, if there is a membrane on which multiple universes sit, if there are an infinite number of universes, God is supposed to be repsonsible for all creation. If it exists, God created it. Because Time is a creation, God, by definition, exists outside of time.

Hmm..

Since we have far more evidence to suggest that other universes may exist, or even different timelines than in gods existance...I would say its a very bold statement to suggest that ours was the first and only, and was created by God, or that God existed before time.

Time may have already started before we got here.

Does a deity prohibit the existence of other universes? Who has said that this universe and Time was the one and only? The argument still stands, if you ask me.

Anyway, as has already been suggested, evidence that can convince one man might not be of a fashion that is able to convince all other men.

So, you believe in God, becuase you want to...

Not becuase it makes any logical sense.

Gotcha.

No. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in anything. I'm the one human being who is willing to sacrifice happiness for the right to sit back and say: "You're all stupid."

Ah..

So why then, if it is equally unverifiable, does anyone bother?
Why doesnt the same logic apply to the reverse?

Since all anyone can do is endlessly speculate about religion, and never obtain a single iota of proof that the very thing they surrender to, actually exists, beyond that wich they convince themselves into experiencing, why then does anyone bother to do it?


Obviously because most people actually like it that way.
Most of us are quite happy with the status quo.

It isn't to your liking, but that is just dur fromage for you.
*happy and smug*

So, you believe in God, becuase you want to...

Not becuase it makes any logical sense.

Gotcha.

I believe in God due to personal experience, which has suggested that a deity is the logical explanation. Science has offered no alternative.

I believe in God due to personal experience, which has suggested that a deity is the logical explanation. Science has offered no alternative.

I doubt you're using logic. You're using your emotion. You jump to conclusions to fast. And "no alternative so God must exist" is a very bad form of negative proof. It uses an assumption which is completely incorrect.

No. God, by definition, was the first cause. If there is a universe outside of ours, if there is a membrane on which multiple universes sit, if there are an infinite number of universes, God is supposed to be repsonsible for all creation. If it exists, God created it. Because Time is a creation, God, by definition, exists outside of time.

Sounds great, except God may not exist at all...let alone his abilty to manipulate the timestream.

Thus, any conclusions you base around this entity, are in fact, base-less, no?
So then, with no foundation, you have no hypothesis.

I believe in God due to personal experience, which has suggested that a deity is the logical explanation. Science has offered no alternative.


Personal experience, you say?

You probably mean just some sort of warm fuzzy feeling, that you are associating with God, right?
Problem is, its equally explainable by saying you pyschosomatically induced an endorphine release, while in church, and believed it to be "God's Presence".

Im not trying to belittle you, just merely suggesting that there may be other explainations.

I doubt you're using logic. You're using your emotion. You jump to conclusions to fast. And "no alternative so God must exist" is a very bad form of negative proof. It uses an assumption which is completely incorrect.

From my personal experiences over a number of years, I have concluded that certain events have occurred, which have not been explained by science. Therefore, if it isn't science, I must look to a religious viewpoint and see how that fits in. If it doesn't then sod it, I'll hang myself! Until new theories are formulated, the Roman Catholic doctrine seems to be the most appropriate prescription of belief for my personal experiences. This is not a rash decision and has taken a large chunk of time and quite considerable mental pain to establish.

Sounds great, except God may not exist at all...let alone his abilty to manipulate the timestream.

Thus, any conclusions you base around this entity, are in fact, base-less, no?
So then, with no foundation, you have no hypothesis.

Look, you will never win an argument with a christian by saying "there's no proof of God so your argument is flawed". That doesn't work. You have to make the assumption that God does in fact exist and then find a logical contradiction. You have to take a persons beliefs and say "If your beliefs are right, then there is a logical fallacy, and so your entire argument falls apart". You have to use logic, not observation.

Personal experience, you say?

You probably mean just some sort of warm fuzzy feeling, that you are associating with God, right?
Problem is, its equally explainable by saying you pyschosomatically induced an endorphine release, while in church, and believed it to be "God's Presence".

Im not trying to belittle you, just merely suggesting that there may be other explainations.

No, it is nothing so pathetic as that. It is a series of much more tangible events. I had considered this, but it did not allow for other happenings. Therefore, I rejected it.

From my personal experiences over a number of years, I have concluded that certain events have occurred, which have not been explained by science. Therefore, if it isn't science, I must look to a religious viewpoint and see how that fits in. If it doesn't then sod it, I'll hang myself! Until new theories are formulated, the Roman Catholic doctrine seems to be the most appropriate prescription of belief for my personal experiences. This is not a rash decision and has taken a large chunk of time and quite considerable mental pain to establish.

Again, I say, your logic is flawed due to an incorrect assumption. Just because "science" may not be able to explain something at this point in time, doesn't mean that it wont be able to in the future.

Again, I say, your logic is flawed due to an incorrect assumption. Just because "science" may not be able to explain something at this point in time, doesn't mean that it wont be able to in the future.

If it does and it fits my experiences and makes sense then I can adopt that stance. However, at present science has not provided such an alternative for me.

No, it is nothing so pathetic as that. It is a series of much more tangible events. I had considered this, but it did not allow for other happenings. Therefore, I rejected it.

Is it another matter of dumb luck? A car stopping in front of you at just the right time, you suddenly moving as a bullet whizzes past where your head just was, etc?

If it does and it fits my experiences and makes sense then I can adopt that stance. However, at present science has not provided such an alternative for me.

So be patient. Don't jump to the closest alternative because you need an answer immediately. That's not logical.

Look, you will never win an argument with a christian by saying "there's no proof of God so your argument is flawed". That doesn't work. You have to make the assumption that God does in fact exist and then find a logical contradiction. You have to take a persons beliefs and say "If your beliefs are right, then there is a logical fallacy, and so your entire argument falls apart". You have to use logic, not observation.


Thats silly.

Why concede the arguement, to try to win it?

Why not simply build a series of facts, that ultimately points to the enivitable.. that nothing exists that should convince anyone, that any diety exists, anywhere?

Unless, youre saying that Christians are incapable of dealing with facts, as the truth is damaging to thier arguements?

Thats silly.

Why concede the arguement, to try to win it?

Why not simply build a series of facts, that ultimately points to the enivitable.. that nothing exists that should convince anyone, that any diety exists, anywhere?

Unless, youre saying that Christians are incapable of dealing with facts, as the truth is damaging to thier arguements?


Facts don't damage their argument at all because facts aren't truth. Facts are inductive arguments. So they can pull the whole 'absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence" thing. Only truth will destroy their argument. So you have to use the logical 'Proof by contradiction'. Where you assume that what you're trying to disprove is correct, then reach a contradiction, thus obliterating one of the axioms. They can deny facts, but not logical truth.

You're not conceding the argument. You're saying 'I'm not going to say god does exist, but what would happen if you were right'. And reach a contradiction from there.

Facts don't damage their argument at all because facts aren't truth. Facts are inductive arguments. So they can pull the whole 'absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence" thing. Only truth will destroy their argument. So you have to use the logical 'Proof by contradiction'. Where you assume that what you're trying to disprove is correct, then reach a contradiction, thus obliterating one of the axioms. They can deny facts, but not logical truth.

You're not conceding the argument. You're saying 'I'm not going to say god does exist, but what would happen if you were right'. And reach a contradiction from there.

Im afraid you lost me at "facts are not truth".

This is the problem with the christian mindset.
I think your right, and they actually believe that.

Or, at least they convince themselves that facts arent truth.

Its interesting that you believe that merely laughing at my sources (as opposed to discussing the content) actually helps your arguement as opposed to weakening it.


It's not worth discussing the content. We are all aware that there is no respected, serious question mark over the essential reliability of carbon-dating in the scientific community. The major attempts to seriously discredit it come from certain Christians who lack an objective approach and instead concentrate on trying to dismiss specific evidence which they find 'inconvenient' by attacking methodology.

Can you provide any sources which lack a religious narrative?

It's not worth discussing the content. We are all aware that there is no respected, serious question mark over the essential reliability of carbon-dating in the scientific community. The major attempts to seriously discredit it come from certain Christians who lack an objective approach and instead concentrate on trying to dismiss specific evidence which they find 'inconvenient' by attacking methodology.

Can you provide any sources which lack a religious narrative?


Heh, try telling them that the Shroud of Tourin is only about 800 years ago.
They really hate that.

Im afraid you lost me at "facts are not truth".

This is the problem with the christian mindset.
I think your right, and they actually believe that.

Or, at least they convince themselves that facts arent truth.

There is a difference between facts and truth.

Truth is absolute. For example:

0 = 0 {axiom}
0 = 0 * 0 {axiom}
Now for logical steps:
0 = [1 + (-1)] * [1 + (-1)]
0 = 1*1 + (-1)*1 + (-1)*1 + (-1)(-1)
0 = 1 - 1 - 1 + (-1)(-1)
0 = -1 + (-1)(-1)
-1 * -1 = 1

This is truth. We start with axioms we define and work from there.


Fact:
The value of G, newtons Gravitational constant is the same everywhere in the universe.

So, lets do an experiment to measure it. We get a value of G.
Do another experiment somewhere else. Same value of G.
Do another experiment somewhere else. Same value of G.
Do another experiment somewhere else. Same value of G.

We haven't done an experiment anywhere that we have observed different value of G. Using the inductive argument we can say that G is the same everywhere in the universe. So the statement is a 'fact'. But if we go out into deep space, perform the experiment over and over again, and get different values of G, it's no longer a fact. The statement is invalid because our argument relies upon observation.


See the difference. Truth is absolute, but it is possible for fact to change. If you present a christian with facts, pish posh, the fact could be different in 100 years. If you give them truth, which is only possible by assuming Gods existece, they can't deny it.

Heh, try telling them that the Shroud of Tourin is only about 800 years ago.
They really hate that.

I'm afraid that there is a lot of speculation about this at the moment. You see, it has been very convincingly suggested that the Shroud is closely connected with another Holy Relic, for which we possess very good documentation in terms of authenticity. Such a date is no longer widely accepted by a large number of historians.

Is it another matter of dumb luck? A car stopping in front of you at just the right time, you suddenly moving as a bullet whizzes past where your head just was, etc?

No, and I find this remark really quite hurtful.

So be patient. Don't jump to the closest alternative because you need an answer immediately. That's not logical.

It's what many scientists do. They come up with a theory and everyone says: "Hey, let's go over there!" Then, someone changes the theory and they jump back onto the other side of the fence. I do not see my outlook as any different.

No, and I find this remark really quite hurtful.

Not my fault mate. You shouldn't be claiming your impatience as logic.

Not my fault mate. You shouldn't be claiming your impatience as logic.

Excuse me, I found the implication of your remark insulting. How dare you suggest that I would be swayed by such ridiculous things.

EDIT: I am no friend of yours either, Sir/Madam.

It's what many scientists do. They come up with a theory and everyone says: "Hey, let's go over there!" Then, someone changes the theory and they jump back onto the other side of the fence. I do not see my outlook as any different.

Well scientists are idiots aren't they.:headbang:

Excuse me, I found the implication of your remark insulting. How dare you suggest that I would be swayed by such ridiculous things.

EDIT: I am no friend of yours either, Sir/Madam.

Well you first post that you're religion is a "logical" conclusion of certain events. Then you say that you know that there are other possible alternatives, but you're jumping straight to religion because it's faster and the scientists do it.

Well you first post that you're religion is a "logical" conclusion of certain events. Then you say that you know that there are other possible alternatives, but you're jumping straight to religion because it's faster and the scientists do it.

No, I evaluate the going theories and back whichever horse that I think will win. If the horse doesn't win then I shall be less likely to stake money on it in the future. To reach my current belief system, I eliminated certain views, which did not fit in with my experience of life, and took the best of a bad job. I feel that I can at least say that this is where I am standing at the moment, sell yourself to me.

No, I evaluate the going theories and back whichever horse that I think will win. If the horse doesn't win then I shall be less likely to stake money on it in the future. To reach my current belief system, I eliminated certain views, which did not fit in with my experience of life, and took the best of a bad job. I feel that I can at least say that this is where I am standing at the moment, sell yourself to me.

Exactly why it's not logic. "..back whichever horse that I think will win." Notice the word 'think' in there. It means that you take a guess. You use your emotion to decide. If you were logical, you'd wait until the horse crossed then line, then you'd know for sure.

Exactly why it's not logic. "..back whichever horse that I think will win." Notice the word 'think' in there. It means that you take a guess. You use your emotion to decide. If you were logical, you'd wait until the horse crossed then line, then you'd know for sure.

I still prefer my method, but there we are then. You evidently prefer yours. I do not mind and I do not really care. To each his own.

I still prefer my method, but there we are then. You evidently prefer yours. I do not mind and I do not really care. To each his own.

Good.:)

Exactly why it's not logic. "..back whichever horse that I think will win." Notice the word 'think' in there. It means that you take a guess. You use your emotion to decide. If you were logical, you'd wait until the horse crossed then line, then you'd know for sure.

Then your logic would have you wait until perhaps it is too late to make a decision, in which case it would no longer be logical, then, would it?

Then your logic would have you wait until perhaps it is too late to make a decision, in which case it would no longer be logical, then, would it?

Logic doesn't involve guessing. It involves getting the right answer through deduction. Speculation isn't logic. Sometimes you have to wait for the right answer to come along. Just because the answer is a little later than desired, doesn't mean it isn't logical. The time at which you know something doesn't make it more or less logical.

+1

+1

Hmm?

I'm not one of those depressingly stupid, naive people who believe that 'everything happens for a reason, yeah', if that's what you mean?

The whole of science depends on finding causes (or a reason) for every effect.




This is priceless. Please expand on this myth as I'm sure the result will be very amusing.


I mean the version of evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang theories that attempt to explain how humans without intervention from God or gods. I refer to this as a modern myth. It is invented by humans, believed upon by multitudes, and used as a reference point to find meaning in life. Some people call it a religion, but I don't think it qualifies for a religion. It certainly doesn't teach us good morals (which even the lesser developed religions have) or other characteristics of religions. So I call it a myth.



No it doesn't. You have asserted that every effect has a cause. I believe that it does not. We've already been over this shit haven't we?


Yes, every effect does have a cause. This is such common knowledge that it forms a major basic assumption in any discipline, any search for knowledge.



So you agree, you will not question your position because you know God exists. Well, how much less fucking scientific can you get? Wait a minute, that's your problem in the first place isn't it?


Since you know that you exist, why don't you continue to use science to find out if you exist? The answer is that such an approach would be pointless. You no longer question your own existence. You certainly wouldn't use science to prove your own existence. Does that mean you are not scientific?

I don't want to use science to prove God's existence, since I don't think it can be done anyway. I think God is far to intelligent and powerful to be exposed by a weak little thing like science (unless he wanted to, of course).



I, on the other hand, am perfectly willing to concede that 'God' (whatever that means) may exist. I just don't think, on the basis of rational, intelligent and above all, objective analysis that 'he' does.

Why don't you explain why, using your rational, intelligence, and your objective analysis, that you think God does not exist? What is irrational about God's existence, in your opinion?

Hmm?
Amazing Grace?

Amazing Grace?

I've got the bagpipe version of that.:D

Logic doesn't involve guessing. It involves getting the right answer through deduction. Speculation isn't logic. Sometimes you have to wait for the right answer to come along. Just because the answer is a little later than desired, doesn't mean it isn't logical. The time at which you know something doesn't make it more or less logical.

Think of it this way. You and I go to the Melbourne Cup. We both want to place money on a horse and win heaps. But we have a limited time to make a logical decision. We can't possibly know all the facts, so we must take a risk. The last possible moment to make a decision is just before the gun shot, when the bookies have to close their books. Logically, then, you and I are forced to take a risk.

When you think about it, life if full of risk taking. The school your parents send you to. The girl you date. The holiday you take. We don't have the luxury of waiting until we know all the facts until we can make a choice. Sometimes, I'll grant you, it is far better to wait. But sometimes, it is better not to wait too long. Wouldn't you say this was logic?

The thing about speculation is that it involves using your imagination. If everyone stop speculating, there would be no more progress in science, no more great music, no more great movies and books, etc. Much of life is risks and speculation. In fact, some would say that this is the 'spice' of life. So go ahead, speculate a little. Maybe even take a risk. You may not get progress without it.

Think of it this way. You and I go to the Melbourne Cup. We both want to place money on a horse and win heaps. But we have a limited time to make a logical decision. We can't possibly know all the facts, so we must take a risk. The last possible moment to make a decision is just before the gun shot, when the bookies have to close their books. Logically, then, you and I are forced to take a risk.

When you think about it, life if full of risk taking. The school your parents send you to. The girl you date. The holiday you take. We don't have the luxury of waiting until we know all the facts until we can make a choice. Sometimes, I'll grant you, it is far better to wait. But sometimes, it is better not to wait too long. Wouldn't you say this was logic?

The thing about speculation is that it involves using your imagination. If everyone stop speculating, there would be no more progress in science, no more great music, no more great movies and books, etc. Much of life is risks and speculation. In fact, some would say that this is the 'spice' of life. So go ahead, speculate a little. Maybe even take a risk. You may not get progress without it.

What you're thinking of is an 'educated guess'. Logic is where you have a set of axioms, and you go through certain steps and end up with a conclusion that is correct 100% of the time given that the axioms are true.

When people take a guess and call it 'logic', it irritates me. So people can speculate all they like, but if they claim that their religion is a consequence of logic, I will yell at them.
:fluffle:

I've got the bagpipe version of that.:D
You say that now...

You say that now...

Umm.....What?:confused:

There is a big difference between the Christian claiming to be 'skeptical' about other gods, and the Christian claiming not to believe in other gods.

What would be the difference, then?

I am skeptical about other gods, because I don't believe that they exist.

I am, however, fully aware that I don't know all the facts, and that I might be wrong. So rather that assert that the non-existence of other gods is the unmutable unbreakable truth upon which all the universe rests, I simply say that I am skeptical about their existence.

I am aware that other Christians might not have the same attitude as I, but what of that? We are all individuals.

You think you have got the Christian position exactly defined--is that it?

What you're thinking of is an 'educated guess'. Logic is where you have a set of axioms, and you go through certain steps and end up with a conclusion that is correct 100% of the time given that the axioms are true.

When people take a guess and call it 'logic', it irritates me. So people can speculate all they like, but if they claim that their religion is a consequence of logic, I will yell at them.
:fluffle:

I see. You have been using a different version to 'logic' than I. You have been using the formal version, the one that mathematicians use, while I have been referring to 'logical' in the less formal sense, in that if something seems right according to one's reason, it is logical.

In that case, I would agree with you. My Christianity probably has nothing to do with your version of logic. It can't fit into such defined little containers.
(That isn't meant as an offense.)

I see. You have been using a different version to 'logic' than I. You have been using the formal version, the one that mathematicians use, while I have been referring to 'logical' in the less formal sense, in that if something seems right according to one's reason, it is logical.

In that case, I would agree with you. My Christianity probably has nothing to do with your version of logic. It can't fit into such defined little containers.
(That isn't meant as an offense.)

Ok then.:)

Umm.....What?:confused:
Richard Watt???
Good Rugby Player but he went to prison for getting in off the field brawls.
The Guy had an anger managment problem.

Ok then, flaws.
How did God come into existence?

Without God, we may ask the same question of the natural universe. There is no first cause.

How do you account for the discrepancy between the time of creation given in the Bible (a short time ago, geologically speaking) and the time shown by science?
You can't, really. You either have faith in God or faith in geology.

Can God violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If so, isn't this a paradox? And if so, doesn't that mean that God is wholly omnipotent and can do the logically impossible, like giving us free will AND making it so that we would never sin? Doesn't that mean that God is NOT good?
If God authored the 2nd law of thermodynamics, he could violate it. It appears to be a paradox because you are not God. God's creations(angels, men, all but the Son[who is god]) could not understand him, or even look at him because his brilliance would destroy their lesser bodies, so God had to have a darker side so that we could understand him without being destroyed by his magnificence. That being said, the god that can be truly understood is not the true God.

The whole of science depends on finding causes (or a reason) for every effect.


Causes, yes. Reasons, no. That's the job religion tries to do.



I mean the version of evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang theories that attempt to explain how humans without intervention from God or gods. I refer to this as a modern myth. It is invented by humans, believed upon by multitudes, and used as a reference point to find meaning in life. Some people call it a religion, but I don't think it qualifies for a religion. It certainly doesn't teach us good morals (which even the lesser developed religions have) or other characteristics of religions. So I call it a myth.


Well, you did just say 'evolution myth' initially, which suggested you felt evolutionary theory alone could be dismissed with such a term.

The other matters you raise are not dependent upon each other and are not necessarily in conflict with the idea of God. They merely attempt to explain how things may have happened, not why they have happened. The only conflict is with particularly narrow-minded religious viewpoints like creationism.

And, yes, science isn't a religion, it's far more complicated than that.



Yes, every effect does have a cause. This is such common knowledge that it forms a major basic assumption in any discipline, any search for knowledge.


I didn't provide sufficient detail there. I meant every effect does not have a specific, pre-determined cause, i.e some events are random.



Since you know that you exist, why don't you continue to use science to find out if you exist? The answer is that such an approach would be pointless. You no longer question your own existence. You certainly wouldn't use science to prove your own existence. Does that mean you are not scientific?



I use science to convince myself of my existence every second I am awake. Usually this is subconciously and afforded to me by the chemical and biological processes going on inside my body.

There isn't a parallel with God here, you think he exists. If you take a step back you must concede there is no way you could know that he does. That would be more than a little bit arrogant.



I don't want to use science to prove God's existence, since I don't think it can be done anyway.


Convenient for you.



I think God is far to intelligent and powerful to be exposed by a weak little thing like science (unless he wanted to, of course).


Science isn't in competition with God; even though many religious types seem to be obsessed with the notion that it is. Statements like this just make you sound silly and paranoid.




Why don't you explain why, using your rational, intelligence, and your objective analysis, that you think God does not exist? What is irrational about God's existence, in your opinion?


There is no evidence for his existence. That's it, it really is that simple.

It's not arrogant to say this because I'm not ruling out the possibility that I'm wrong. The reverse is true of claiming that God exists even though no evidence exists to support this contention.

He didn't. He exists outside time. He created time. He did not come into existance


The problem with that idea is - if you assume a god that exists 'outside' of time, then he/she/it can NOT have 'created' anything - because he/she/it can not experience a point OF duration... no 'before' the universe was created, so no 'after'.


There are some discrepencies in the scientific analysis of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon


You use two biased, and wildly inaccurate sources. Both sources use the authors 'belief' that the creationist model is inviolable, to justify their 'reasoning' on the 'flaws' in Carbon dating... example - the first source says that Carbon dating can only be accurate as far back as five-thousand years, because he/she believes that anything that appears 'older' must have been skewed by the effects of creation... and then, that same author has the front to suggest carbon-dating calibration might be based on 'circular' logic...


God created the universe and so part of it was the second law of themodynamics. So he wouldnt break it if it was an intrigal part of his creation. He has the power to create a universe without it if thats what you mean


Conjecture. You'd like to believe that, but that opinion is neither evidenced, nor scripturally supported.


The Bible doesnt say that God is omnipotent, for example it says God cannot lie. And it is impossible to make us have free will and so that we would never sin, because they are contradictory. Its like creating something that can travel at 300MPH but not above 2KPH. Its contradictory

I suggest that you read Revelation 19:6. Depending on your translation, it describes god as either 'omnipotent', or 'all-powerful' - which means the same thing.

As to your claim that it is impossible for god to give us free will AND create us so that we never sin - it shows a fundamental lack of scriptural knowledge - Matthew 19:26 would show you the way... "With God ALL things are possible".

(And, of course, God could easily create a being that could not sin - by simply creating a being that had no capacity for sin - no reproductive organs, no appetites, no violent urges, etc. Such a being could still have 'free will'... it just wouldn't be able to 'sin' with it).

And so too does science (at least, some branches of it).

And science fundamentalists are trying their hardest to have scientific theories wedged into the 'religious' syllabus. Why should intelligent design, and omnipotence for that matter, be bound by the rules of language?

Science and religion are a very diverse and rich combination and can exist with each other.

And what a disgusting simile!

What are you talking about?

Show me ONE example of 'science' trying to 'wedge' theories into religious education?

Excuse me, in a thread entitled "My personal overview of the Christian faith" I am not allowed to suggest religious theories? I was refuting your erroneous statement in which you claimed that Genesis was not a theory. You were the one who failed to specify which definition of the word you were using. Also, the definition you stated was also erroneous as a theory does not have to be based upon observation.

Evolution and Genesis can be compared as a red jumper and a green jumper are compared. They are both theories, but they are of different hue.

I think you are being disingenuous... you had been chasing 'scientific theory' after 'scientific theory' - which I have already commented on as being a deceptive approach.

The comment about Genesis not being a 'theory' is perfectly in context with the exchange we had been having - whether or not it is the central thrust of THIS topic.

Regarding wht is required of a scientific theory, allow me to point you to the first source I happened across:

"What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

Here is a simplified version of the logic of the scientific method: we begin the encounter with nature by making observations and then through some creative process a hypothesis is generated about how some process of nature works. On the basis of this hypothesis, an experiment is logically deduced that will result in a set of particular observations that should occur, under particular conditions, if the hypothesis true. If those particular observations do not occur, then we are faced with several possibilities: our hypothesis needs to be revised, the experiment was carried out incorrectly, or the analysis of the results from that experiment was in error".

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm

Time is too complex a medium to understand at this present moment in Time. However, recent questions have been asked in academic circles about the possibility of Time reversal and the answers given were, for now, that there was no reason to think that it could not happen.

Just as you have 'seen' evidence to support one theory, so I have 'seen' evidence to support another. We cannot share these personal experiences unless we speak of them now, can we? And then, of course, one party doubts the other and vice versa and we get nowhere.

I assume you have seen a battery cell?

You know, perhaps, that there is 'potential' chemical energy in that cell, and that this 'potential energy' can be transformed into - for example - kinetic energy, by simply wiring the cell to a motor?

Easy demonstration of energy being transformed from one form to another.

(No such example is likely to exist for your idea of reversed time...)

Also - just because there is no implicit reason to believe that reversal of time could NOT happen... does not equate to a reason to say it COULD.

If He doesn't exist within this universe ( since He created it ), He must necessarily exist within another space-time continuum, provided He exists. Otherwise, Causality breaks down.

The existence of God is beyond proof, or disprove.
If it were verifiable, there would be absolute no point in religion.

Unless of course, God and the universe are one?

No. God, by definition, was the first cause. If there is a universe outside of ours, if there is a membrane on which multiple universes sit, if there are an infinite number of universes, God is supposed to be repsonsible for all creation. If it exists, God created it. Because Time is a creation, God, by definition, exists outside of time.

Where do you get this 'definition'?

I've seen a lot of 'definitions' for 'god' or 'gods', not all are anywhere NEAR consonant with what you suggest as 'by definition'.

From my personal experiences over a number of years, I have concluded that certain events have occurred, which have not been explained by science. Therefore, if it isn't science, I must look to a religious viewpoint and see how that fits in. If it doesn't then sod it, I'll hang myself! Until new theories are formulated, the Roman Catholic doctrine seems to be the most appropriate prescription of belief for my personal experiences. This is not a rash decision and has taken a large chunk of time and quite considerable mental pain to establish.

So - what you are saying is, your faith is justified because there are holes in another system?

By that token, surely - if you can find errors or conflicts in scripture, you would refute Catholicism in favour of something ELSE?

The whole of science depends on finding causes (or a reason) for every effect.



No - it doesn't.

If 'science' has 'an objective', it is to figure out the mechanisms by which things occur. This MAY lead to ideas about causes.



I mean the version of evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang theories that attempt to explain how humans without intervention from God or gods. I refer to this as a modern myth. It is invented by humans, believed upon by multitudes, and used as a reference point to find meaning in life. Some people call it a religion, but I don't think it qualifies for a religion. It certainly doesn't teach us good morals (which even the lesser developed religions have) or other characteristics of religions. So I call it a myth.


Another strawman. On a number of levels. First - the idea that there is a 'version' of some coherent story... you are confusing the nature of scripture, with a collection of related theories.

Second - none of these theories attempt to do ANYTHING, except suggest mechanisms based on observations.

Third - None of these theories attempt to 'explain how humans [exist] without intervention from god or gods'. They simply attempt to explain the mechanisms by which things might happen... 'god' is irrelevent to the process.

And, since I know Christians, who are ALSO scientists, I have to assume that it is NOT impossible to follow the scientific method AND still believe in the involvement of god.

What would be the difference, then?

I am skeptical about other gods, because I don't believe that they exist.

I am, however, fully aware that I don't know all the facts, and that I might be wrong. So rather that assert that the non-existence of other gods is the unmutable unbreakable truth upon which all the universe rests, I simply say that I am skeptical about their existence.

I am aware that other Christians might not have the same attitude as I, but what of that? We are all individuals.

You think you have got the Christian position exactly defined--is that it?

You think I'm wrong?

Perhaps you can show me where your scripture endorses 'skepticism' about gods, as opposed to 'disbelief'?

He didn't. He exists outside time. He created time. He did not come into existance
So why can't the universe just come into existence?


There are some discrepencies in the scientific analysis of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
Carbon dating doesn't tell us anthing about geological age, it has nothing to do with it.

God created the universe and so part of it was the second law of themodynamics. So he wouldnt break it if it was an intrigal part of his creation. He has the power to create a universe without it if thats what you mean
This means he cannot interact with the universe unless he is physical and unless he has lots and lots of energy.

The Bible doesnt say that God is omnipotent, for example it says God cannot lie. And it is impossible to make us have free will and so that we would never sin, because they are contradictory. Its like creating something that can travel at 300MPH but not above 2KPH. Its contradictory
Some folk argue he can (it's one of the versions of the free will answer to evil). Anyways, that's moot if he can't break the second law.

1. God is the uncaused cause and, therefore, has no need to come into existence as He already exists. I think that sums up it up in a nutshell.
Why can't the singularity the universe came from be the uncaused cause, instead of something else? Also, the uncaused cause/prime mover is not necessarily the same as the God of faith - it's merely someone who pressed the on button. Also, if God can meddle in the world, it makes a mockeryof the cosmologicalargument, ecause then we have many uncaused causes.

2. The time shown by scientists? I don't think so. Whereas science says "the universe was formed x million years ago", does the Bible say so? It has never done so when I've read it.
The Bible implies that it only a short time elapsed between the creation of the universe and the modern day. Unless, of course, the time in the garden was many millions or billions of years. (Calculated based on the ages given in the Bible, creation was 4004 BC, October 23rd, at about six in the morning...)

3. The problem is one of language, not God's omnipotence. For example, here's another: can God create a shape that is both 100% red and 100% white? The answer, naturally, is "no", but only because of our understanding of language and mathematics, in which 100% is a whole.
Not if God is TOTALLY omnipotent. Then he could do stuff that seems logically impossible, and make it soit was neither illogical nor impossible.

This is entirely possible. What are you looking for me to say?

My Atheism aside, the reason why these 'visions' of the Virgin Mary are considered so dubious, is because they cannot be 'repeated'.

Certainly - if you claim you see the Virgin Mary, I am going to assume it less than 'official' until I see some pretty good evidence.

If you saw it through the scientific method, so that I could at least document and verify your 'methodology', if not the result, I might be less skeptical. And, if by repeating your 'procedure', I could demonstrate the SAME results, we might really have something.


I don't think anyone will 'win' in these types of discussions, we never really get to the root of them. We don't analyze the axioms we base our logic on. Here you come very close to one Axiom, form one point of view religion doesn't fit the Scientific method, it is not repeatable or predictive. I agree.

But does evolution follow the scientific method? is it repeatable or predictive? Are you aware of the many flaws, and circular logic that can also be found in Dawinian Evolution? Many will talk about the indoctrination of various religions, but have you thought about the massive amount of indoctrination used by evolutionist? Virtually all education programs indoctrinate us with it.

I don't think anyone will 'win' in these types of discussions, we never really get to the root of them. We don't analyze the axioms we base our logic on. Here you come very close to one Axiom, form one point of view religion doesn't fit the Scientific method, it is not repeatable or predictive. I agree.

But does evolution follow the scientific method? is it repeatable or predictive? Are you aware of the many flaws, and circular logic that can also be found in Dawinian Evolution? Many will talk about the indoctrination of various religions, but have you thought about the massive amount of indoctrination used by evolutionist? Virtually all education programs indoctrinate us with it.

As an ex-Christian, I have perspective of both 'sides' of the issue. I don't argue that science is BETTER than religion - the two are very different, but I do argue that science is more LOGICAL. And better supported with evidence.

Does evolution follow the scientific method? Yes. It is based on observation, and the attempt to create a mechanism to explain that observation. That mechanism has been modified many times since it was first suggested.

Is it repeatable or predictive? Predictive - yes, whole branches of medicine are based on that factor. Repeatable... hard to be sure when you talk big time frames.

Am I aware of the flaws in Darwinian Evolution? Well - Darwin may have been instrumental in the acceptence of Evolution as a theory, but it has moved a LONG way from the Darwinian model. I don't see any FATAL flaws in the theory... because science has a habit of admitting that theories are never 'finished'... they are ALWAYS works-in-progress.

As to 'evolutionist indoctrination'. Poppycock. Even when I was at school (20 years ago), it was part of the literature that evolution is a theory. Aside from which, of course, it is scientific, and is taught in SCIENCE classes. To claim that as 'indoctrination' is a little like trying to claim "2+2=4" is a mind-alteration tool.

What are you talking about?

Show me ONE example of 'science' trying to 'wedge' theories into religious education?
you know

like when scientists lobby the regents of big time seminaries to get the theory of evolution taught alongside the garden of eden story

or when they send individual scientists to various churchs so that when the preacher starts in on the story of genesis they can stand up and demand equal time

that kind of thing.