Raithere said:It's called the conservation of angular momentum.
It probably only works on earth, not in space.
Raithere said:It's called the conservation of angular momentum.
It's a very intersting thought but (in my opinion) God must still have a beginning. Perhaps He has no creator and He simply willed himself into existence, but then to do so Her must have already been 'alive'.Only things that have a beginning have need of a creator. God always exists (past, present and future) therefore He has no need of a creator.
Raithere said:Not at all. It states that we cannot redress our imperfections and that the only way to avoid the punishment that we deserve is by God's sacrifice. Therefore the only people that will face the consequence of their actions are those who go to hell. Those who have faith in Christ are absolved, this is coin he demands for his sacrifice. Of course, we might argue whether this message is more Paul's than Jesus's.
I've read the Bible cover to cover 5 times (okay, I did skim through the begats). I've read 4 different versions. I've read the non-canonical gospels and a portion of the dead sea-scrolls. I've read commentaries, interpretations, and histories; I've referenced original Greek and Hebrew passages. And I've gone back to various translations to research and reference particular subjects more times than I can count. Additionally, I was a Christian until around the age of 20. I would say that I have a pretty sound understanding of Christian doctrine and belief.
Reason and ethics. I am unable to reconcile Christian doctrine with either.
~Raithere
Raithere said:Because it is supported by evidence and contradicted by none.
Your belief is still a belief that you hope is true, just like us Christians.Raithere said:That and natural selection. ID proponents tend to over emphasize the randomness of mutation without considering the filtering effect of natural selection. Natural selection is non-random, therefore the results are non-random.
Raithere said:But I also notice that what an individual understands as the truth has a lot to do with their perspective, their world view. Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu... new data, new 'facts', must be fit in to a larger whole. The existing structure determines what gets accepted or rejected. More importantly, it determines how things get accepted or rejected. They must make sense within the context of other beliefs. The position that I most often attack is not of any particular belief, but certitude in any belief, unwillingness to critically examine any concept.
The only methodology I have for measuring the truth of any concept is how congruent it is with other concepts. Do the facts line up or do they conflict? How well and from how many differing perspectives? It's not a science, there are too many variables, too many fuzzy concepts, and unknowns. But it's workable. It's flexible without being ungrounded.
Never 'throw your belief away'. Examine it. Test it. Turn it around and look at it from another perspective. Explore alternatives. Allow for adaptation, understanding, and change. Belief should evolve (sorry, couldn't help it). If your path leads you deeper into religiosity, great, if it leads you towards agnosticism or atheism, wonderful. What it should not do is stagnate. If your beliefs only become narrower then you're no longer learning anything new, you're just looking to confirm what you already know.
~Raithere
john smith said:Look around you, you see people that are like sheep, the church dominating their lives, because someone somewhere 2000 or so years ago sed they were the son of 'god' you have people who wont open there minds to the possibility that a vast proportion of the christian faith is complete bull, do you have proof that its not, that God does exist?? Because if you are no going to say the bible, how come the vatican only allow something like 10% to be published, there is supposedly 90% of scriptures-about jesus that we no nothing about, yet THEY do.... makes you wonder, doesnt it? :m:
What evidence do you seek from us? The evidence supporting evolution?jayleew said:and I myself have not received any valid evidence that you all say is there. In fact, I haven't even heard any evidence that I can even digest...except for a rebuttal of Behe's work, which is not proof of anything, but that Behe may be reaching.
I cannot prove that God exists, just as you cannot prove he doesn't. If you could, then call up the press.
Yorda said:I know. So do planets, but because of the magnetic effects between them, they are in constant motion and the repelling effect is not easily detectable.
I know, and I know that matter doesn't "dissapear" in a black hole.
Sure it will. For instance, if you had an eye without, let's say a lens, you could still see. You just wouldn't be able to focus as well. There are many 'stages' of eye development in the animal kingdom that are not 'complete' from the standpoint of a mammal's eye yet still have a useful function. Everything from 'eye spots', to concave eye spots, to pinhole cameras.psycho-sth-african said:Well Firstly 97% of an eye wont help at all
Step by step.The beetle the sprays a explosive chemical, how did evolve if not designed??
It may be arrogance, but it is the truth. It is evident in your lack of understanding of Christianity. You may know a little, but Raithere I can tell knows more (but even he is a tiny bit askew in his understanding of scriptures). I can tell when someone takes scripture out of context of other scriptures. The Bible is a whole and depends upon the whole for (at best) human undestanding.Sarkus said:Logical Fallacy: do not judge the argument on the person who said it, but on the argument itself.
It is also arrogance on your part. You have no idea how much "Christian Theology" I do or do not know. Unless you are claiming to know me, to know my upbringing?
I could learn much more of Evolution, and I only know what people smarter than me say.Sarkus said:No - your comments did that themselves.
Otherwise you wouldn't have come out with what you did. You appear to be ignorant of both the theory of evolution, of the scientific method, and also seemingly of logical fallacies.
You undoubtedly have heard of all, but your comments are ample proof.
1. True.Sarkus said:1. The lack of evidence for a theory does not negate the theory. There has never been evidence to refute it - and so it remains a theory that fits all the facts.
2. Why are the chances of finding any evidence today slim? Where are your references for this? What makes you say this? Have we really dug up that much of the Earth's surface already and found nothing? No.
Says who? Do we have proof? Don't answer that I don't want to frustrate you, you might pull something.Sarkus said:And the micro can lead to the macro.
Every scientist I named from the Case for a Creator is just the surface of the evidence. Yes, the evidence needs to be rebuttled AND countered, but it is there nonetheless. It is the same as your evidence. We are in the same boat.Sarkus said:So you are more content to follow a religion with ZERO evidence over some other explanation with SOME evidence? Hmmm.
LOL!
Let me rephrase - no scientist has ever found evidence supporting the existence of God.
Your Christian God is beyond evidence and beyond proof. It relies wholly on blind faith.
Otherwise, where is this evidence they have found? I really am interested to know.
Good point. So, when we reach the unexaplainable we just hope that someday we can find the answer. How many years have I heard that we are close to a cure for cancer, but it is still rampant.Sarkus said:Ah - so when we reach the "unexplainable" we are satisfied by "God did it"?
Woohoo - we can happily stop doing all scientific research in the world - because the answer is "God did it!" Now why didn't I think of that. My next scientific journal will be "God did it!" And they'll ask me: "God did what?". And I'll reply: "Everything!" and I'll be hailed as the guru of science.
The problem with this answer, as has been discussed many times on this forum (but not this thread) is that the answer "God did it!" is meaningless and adds no value. It is a lazy response for those that can't be arsed to look deeper.
Maybe our tools aren't yet up to the task of probing further, but to merely say "God did it!" is meaningless.
This is a classic argument from fear (a logical fallacy).I wish I was - but unfortunately your words were quite clear:
“If we continue to live without God, we are not going to like where it's going. The politicians are opening the law. Little by little, inch by inch. We are going to come to a point where everything is legal and anything infringing on that is discrimination. Open your eyes. Do you want to be around 40 years from now if things don't change?”
Agreed.Sarkus said:My example of "God exists 'cos I fear the alternative" was merely to highlight the argument from fear that you are using to support your faith.
Who says morality is objective? You do in order to satisfy your belief in your God, but where is your evidence that morality is objective?
You claim it is fact but it is nothing more than a circular argument: God exists because morality is objective. But why is morality objective? - because if morality is objective then I can say that god exists.
I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. I never have and never will. I merely claim that he is unprovable. That there is no evidence for him. And thus I choose to have no belief that he exists. That is NOT the same as believing that he doesn’t exist. An infinite possibilities exist as to what is beyond our Universe. Why should I “believe” one of them to be any truer than the others? It is irrational to do so.
Opinons are not fact, but I respect yours.Sarkus said:My point here is that Religion of any form has a fundamental psychological benefit to those that need such. I have no issue with it. It is a large “self-help” group with words on how to live your life. It gives your life meaning if you feel you need it. It gives your life purpose if you feel you need it. It is nothing but psychological help.
If anyone brainwashed me, it was me because I push my doubts aside in faith.Sarkus said:Oh, for f**k’s sake – you seem to be severely brainwashed, you truly do.
It might be harder for YOU to go through life without God – and fair enough – use religion, your belief, to help you, as a psychological crutch on which to make the passage of your life easier. But do NOT claim to know whether it is easier or harder for anyone else. You can not speak for everyone. You can not speak for me!
You are nothing but one individual on this planet.
If life is futile, then why deny anything of yourself? I mean if you are going to die anyway, might as well live it up. What a world if people realized this.Sarkus said:In the grand scheme of things, is life futile? Probably. Is the Universe futile? Probably. Is everything futile? Probably. But I am quite content to live with that - something you are obviously not, and thus place a belief in something to help you bypass the need to accept it.
Medicine Woman said:killslay: if you can argue who created God, some christians could argue that God is the begginning of all creation. However the atheist could also say that the universe was just always there just like the religious people say that god was just there
Raithere said:Sure it will. For instance, if you had an eye without, let's say a lens, you could still see. You just wouldn't be able to focus as well. There are many 'stages' of eye development in the animal kingdom that are not 'complete' from the standpoint of a mammal's eye yet still have a useful function. Everything from 'eye spots', to concave eye spots, to pinhole cameras.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
Step by step.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
~Raithere
Saint said:If Everything must have a cause (causes) in order to exist, then, who created God?
If God does not need to be created, then how can he exist?
I am a Christian and reason is in my head, but I am doing the insane thing and going against reason for my own safety. I'd rather be wrong and dead, than dead-wrong about God :m: .Godless said:First of all you need to identify what god is, what is god/God?
To me is a word with no identity, The buybull does not say what god is, it only explains what god is not. God is not man, though we supposed to believe that he borne a son. God is beyond men's comprehesion, So why the hell are there so many advocates?.
So I ask what is god? What identity can you posibly give this character? Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnivolent, Omnipresent, are only characterestics of this being, yet no identity is given for such a being able to be so many contradictory omni's everything.
If I were to state as an atheist, that there's no such thing as a god, I would be under the same scrutiny as any theist, who claims the existence of this being. For one If I claim that God does not exist, I assume responsibility to give this entity an identity, and that it does not exist.
Since I canot give an identity to this entity, I can't make the claim that God does not exist. As an a-theist all I claim is that I don't believe in the theory of god, I don't believe this concept to be true, for the mere lack of evidence to it's identiy & existence.
I too was a theist and believe in creationism till one day, "reason" sneaked in my head and completely debunked what I thought once to be true.
Creation science debunked
Click
Immoral Pseudoscience
Talk Reason
Against Creationism
That should keep you busy studing some real science for a change :bugeye: