Proving god made the universe!

[Assassin X]

Not sure which "religious" section to put this under.

Proving god made the universe!

I have blocked myself from coming to this section. BUT this is an exception. After thinking about this I really couldn't think of any other place to ask.

Ok, two parts to this really. First, we know that in the middle of our universe there a massive swarm of galaxies or whatever that resemble a giant fireball almost, well not literally, but that’s how it looks like in drawings and what not and we are far from that (our galaxy is). And that over the years science has said the universe is expanding, supposedly like a giant fireball is spreading or something outward.

Well since this is the religious section lets look at this from the religious view point.

A. Who can have SO much power that they can create such a massive fireball, energy burst...etc to create life? God.

B. Who has the power to create a universe period? God.

If you look at the "core" of this universe it looks like it was created by someone. Yeah science says "the big bang". Yes a massive amount of energy came from nothingness! The answer here must have been God! If you look at it you see a massive bright core and from there everything spreads out. and past that there is really nothing! Almost as if everything was created just for us!

Some would say "Thats because its expanding dumb ass!" But if you look its blank for a MASSIVE amount of space past our universe before you even get to the "end" where the gases are they are talking about. Once again like it was created then stopped like someone made it that way for us to enjoy!

Now lets think about some other obvious factors.

A. The odds that out of the infinite amount of factors with all the galaxies, planets, stars there happen to be a planet that had 100% PERFECT conditions and people just HAPPEN to appear on it. Its impossible. God made it that way.

B. Now that those odds are done. What are the odds that all the creatures, right down to our very blood cells immune systems...etc were made to work so perfectly (Well as can be expected?). That would take a miracle. Or God.

C. Now that were past something I wouldn't believe in a movie if it was about "nothingness creating it"... Then we get into that fact there happens to be all these perfect things like gravity, physics...etc. Nothingness made these too? I think God did.

No one can possibly say everything that was made with its beyond infinite complexity , heck theres not really even a word for that, was created by nothing. It just "happened". And all these trillion in one odds happen over and over. Yeah right! Something would have to created all that. Its just to complex, not even the smartest person in the world can create anything this complex, no really. We can barley make robots that can walk right, yet were expected to believe things just magically happen!

Anyways, thats my "spew" about that "God" created the universe.

So you can either talk about it or say the typical "Well God don't exist" or even dumbed things and try and get out of talking about it like "Well then who created god!". Just because you can't fathom the idea of something that existed and never had to be created. Remember "Creation" is just something humans came up with. Doesn't mean its a real thing to God. Making the universe may have been the first thing he ever "created" and hence the time anyone knew was that even meant so its impossible to say "Who created him". No one, he exists.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Who can have SO much power that they can create such a massive fireball, energy burst...etc to create life? God.

But is a God necessary here? No. The power may have already been present - it merely reacted in this burst.


Yeah science says "the big bang". Yes a massive amount of energy came from nothingness!

That's not what the Big Bang states. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, exactly, but it didn't just pop magically out of nowhere.


But if you look its blank for a MASSIVE amount of space past our universe before you even get to the "end" where the gases are they are talking about.

I don't exactly understand what you're talking about here. The "end"? If you're talking about a finite universe, that doesn't necessarily mean much of anything. When the Big Bang did occur, it didn't instantaneously fill the entire universe - that would kinda fly in the face of physics, natch.

In this case, the vast emptiness of space just means the debris of the Big Bang hasn't flown far enough yet to reach the edges of the universe.


The odds that out of the infinite amount of factors with all the galaxies, planets, stars there happen to be a planet that had 100% PERFECT conditions and people just HAPPEN to appear on it. Its impossible. God made it that way.

No, wrong.

1) As rough as the odds might be, you yourself point out that there are tons of galaxies out there, each with multitudes of stars and multitudes of planets. Even if Earth appearing was a long-shot, there were billions of opportunities for the long shot. That makes it a lot less unlikely.

2) Keep in mind that planets don't evolve to accommodate creatures. Creatures evolve to accommodate planets. There were long odds that a planet just like Earth would come into being, but if a planet isn't just like Earth, that doesn't mean it can't support life. It just means the life will be different from life on this planet.


Now that those odds are done. What are the odds that all the creatures, right down to our very blood cells immune systems...etc were made to work so perfectly (Well as can be expected?). That would take a miracle. Or God.

Or survival of the fittest. Just sayin'.


Now that were past something I wouldn't believe in a movie if it was about "nothingness creating it"... Then we get into that fact there happens to be all these perfect things like gravity, physics...etc. Nothingness made these too? I think God did.

"Nothingness"? Uh, these forces could've always been there. They could've come into being due to the reactions of the Big Bang. We don't know what caused them, but they definitely didn't come from "nothingness". That not a theory of the Big Bang, and it makes no sense.


Just because you can't fathom the idea of something that existed and never had to be created.

ROFL! PLEASE tell me you can see the irony here, A-X.


No one, he exists.

Or not. We don't know.

Edit: After some thought, I moved this one to the Is There A God? forum. Open for discussion if anyone disagrees.

[DontBeAfraid]

yet were expected to believe things just magically happen!Like a magical being breathing life into mud statues...



Just because you can't fathom the idea of somethingAmusing line to follow:


Its just to complex, not even the smartest person in the world can create anything this complex


A. The odds that out of the infinite amount of factors with all the galaxies, planets, stars there happen to be a planet that had 100% PERFECT conditions and people just HAPPEN to appear on it. Its impossible. God made it that way.Ok, we shall raise the finite number of planets to infinite and add that to the formula against life as this is what you just did. Unfortuenately it goes the other way. In an infinite timeframe and infinite planets everything that can happen MUST and eventually will happen... So if considitions suitable to life can arise they will thus changing the incredible odds against it happening to its 100% guarenteed to happen.


A. Who can have SO much power that they can create such a massive fireball, energy burst...etc to create life? God.

B. Who has the power to create a universe period? God.If yo udont mind, could you tell me how you konw this? I mean, to make such a definitive statement you must be holding onto some proof of this gods powers.


If you look at the "core" of this universe it looks like it was created by someone.No, it really doesnt. It looks like particles obeying the laws of physics.


The answer here must have been God! Poeple use this answer to form a non answer instead of saying they dont know something.


If you look at it you see a massive bright core and from there everything spreads out. and past that there is really nothing! Almost as if everything was created just for us!This is highly amusing if you consider the fraction of this known universe that is reachable by us or even useful to us. If it were tailor made for us then we should expect to a larger portion of it specifically useful to us in some way. Instead we find that most of the universe is very inhospitable to us and should quickly kill us were we to find ourselves emersed in it.



B. Now that those odds are done. What are the odds that all the creatures, right down to our very blood cells immune systems...etc were made to work so perfectly (Well as can be expected?). That would take a miracle. Or God.I take it you dont believe in evolution....


Then we get into that fact there happens to be all these perfect things like gravity, physics...etc. Nothingness made these too? I think God did.gravity here on earth is decent for us to live in given all the millions of years life on earth has spent adapting to it. Though the question of the universal forces is a good one. To speculate on the conditions of "nothingness" though is quite fruitless when you consider that we do in fact exist.


of something that existed and never had to be created. Remember "Creation" is just something humans came up with. Doesn't mean its a real thing to God. Making the universe may have been the first thing he ever "created" and hence the time anyone knew was that even meant so its impossible to say "Who created him". No one, he exists.Two questions:
1. why are you so sure that your god has a penis?
2. why must your god be the thing that has always existed? Why cant the thing that always existed be something like the conditions that provoked the big bang?

[Assassin X]

Two questions:
1. why are you so sure that your god has a penis?
Lol. Cause I seen it!


2. why must your god be the thing that has always existed? Why cant the thing that always existed be something like the conditions that provoked the big bang?

I am open for something else if people think another "higher power" created the universe. Its better then saying "It just happened".


That's not what the Big Bang states. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, exactly, but it didn't just pop magically out of nowhere.

Most people always give me the impression or tell me it just happened out of nothing, as nothing was there before and and it just blew up from nothingness. Which sounds so silly to me. But then again you guys aren't that dull so I guess you know more then they do on what the Big Bang really is. So if you say it didn't "pop up" then that sound better then what most people say.


No, it really doesnt. It looks like particles obeying the laws of physics.
And who created the laws? Something has to tell the universe when it started that "A + B =C and C acts this way....etc". Like when a programmer makes a program, someone has to create the code, it just doesn't make itself. Theres always a creator.


This is highly amusing if you consider the fraction of this known universe that is reachable by us or even useful to us. If it were tailor made for us then we should expect to a larger portion of it specifically useful to us in some way. Instead we find that most of the universe is very inhospitable to us and should quickly kill us were we to find ourselves emersed in it.


I would say if God wasn't real and this universe was infinity big with probably a infinity more planets there should be life out there somewhere, heck ALOT of life. Unless something didn't want life except for us. Maybe the universe was created to show us how beautiful it was so we would just enjoy it. But instead we see it and question it and its creator. Hmm? Although I do have to say I never have read anything in the bible that says there ISN'T any other life in out there. So I can go either way on the subject.


I take it you dont believe in evolution....
Of course not. I believe animals "adapt" or evolve in some ways but I don't believe humans came from what people say we did. And its not because of lack of evidence or anything like that. Its just because of the pure complexity of everything in our bodies ALONE not counting everything else in the universe. Something like the human body just doesn't get made randomly, nor does the Neanderthal (what you believe in) or whatever else you believe in. There so many complex things on this plant it would take a god (referring to as in a general "god" there) to make such a massive amount of complex living creatures with such bodies, systems...etc.

[Sammy56]

A. The odds that out of the infinite amount of factors with all the galaxies, planets, stars there happen to be a planet that had 100% PERFECT conditions and people just HAPPEN to appear on it. Its impossible. God made it that way.Philosopher pointed the error in this out a bit. Yes, the Earth has perfect conditions for the life that lives on it. Why? Because life evolved so it could live on it. We don't know if life could evolve on other planets under different circumstances. All life might not need water. All life might not be carbon based. We don't know for sure.


I am open for something else if people think another "higher power" created the universe. Its better then saying "It just happened".I don't think any scientist said "it just happened". We aren't sure why the Big Bang happened. It could have been purely God. It could have been purely physical. It could have been God working through another physical place (he seems to follow the laws of physics now, so why not before the universe existed?). There are theories, but it would be almost impossible for us to discover the cause of our own universe as we cannot observe anything outside the universe, if there is something. God is a viable option. But you cannot prove it.


Lol. Cause I seen it! That must have been awkward.

[DontBeAfraid]

Something like the human body just doesn't get made randomly,No they dont. If that is your current interpretation of evolution then you need to study some more.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

A-X, I think a lot of the problems you have with evolution and theories of that nature is that you think they're explained away by wild coincidence, which isn't the case with any scientific theory. If a scientist tried to justify a hypothesis with "it just happened," they'd be laughed out of the building.

As a general rule, if someone describes a scientific theory with "It came out of nothingness!" or "We just got lucky!" they don't actually know what they're talking about.

[Cartesiantheater]

why are you so sure that your god has a penis?Lol. Cause I seen it!

This right here will go down in history as one of the greatest AO quotes of all time...



And who created the laws? Something has to tell the universe when it started that "A + B =C and C acts this way....etc". Like when a programmer makes a program, someone has to create the code, it just doesn't make itself. Theres always a creator.

Now you're halfway there to believing in theistic evolution. You've already suggested that God designes laws and then lets the universe move according to those laws... just a bit more Assassin...




Of course not. I believe animals "adapt" or evolve in some ways but I don't believe humans came from what people say we did. And its not because of lack of evidence or anything like that. Its just because of the pure complexity of everything in our bodies ALONE not counting everything else in the universe. Something like the human body just doesn't get made randomly, nor does the Neanderthal (what you believe in) or whatever else you believe in. There so many complex things on this plant it would take a god (referring to as in a general "god" there) to make such a massive amount of complex living creatures with such bodies, systems...etc.


But it isn't random! Have you ever wondered why players in the NBA are so tall? Or why kids at Ivy league schools are always great test takers? It isn't "RANDOM"- it is because selective pressures weed out the short players or the poor test takers.

Selection happens ALL the time Assassin. It shapes the very world you live in- it's EVERYWHERE. Why is it such a jump to believe that the selective pressures that shape EVERYTHING YOU SEE might have ALSO shaped the creatures that exist today and have existed in the past?

You were so close... how do you know that natural selection is not God's most powerful physical creation?

Anyway, I am impressed with your reletive objectivity and maturity with this thread. Good work my friend.

[Tyler Durden]

I haven't read the replies, but someone had to have pointed out that you are really contradicting yourself here.

"Yes a massive amount of energy came from nothingness! The answer here must have been God!"

"Just because you can't fathom the idea of something that existed and never had to be created."

Um... hello?

[jeffweeder]

You were so close... how do you know that natural selection is not God's most powerful physical creation?

hes better than that,.......why would GOD rely on a process?

To inject the love and beauty and mannerisms which is evident in all creatures, plants etc, means that God lovingly made them all individually---------that is how i explain what makes everything magical and unique.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

hes better than that,.......why would GOD rely on a process?

I think observation has pretty much shown that God DOES rely on a process. Gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and a multitude of other laws and routines that occur every day. God doesn't appear to yank us down to Earth every time we jump out of a plane - there's a process involved, which takes care of things for us.

Sorry, but you're begging the question. There's no reason for God to use a process, maybe, but there's no reason he shouldn't, either.

[Sammy56]

hes better than that,.......why would GOD rely on a process? Like Foelhe said, why not? One thing I don't get about antievolutionists is this exact claim. They seem to feel that, if you believe evolution, it takes all the beauty out of the natural world. On the contrary! Knowing the immensely complex processes used to form all living things from the basic molecules makes them even more beautiful. And evolution doesn't mean that God didn't make them all individually. It just means he made them meticulously, working through natural processes, over a long period of time. You say "why?" but I say "why not?". Evolution doesn't disprove God or that he has a special interest in humans. It just proves that he didn't just snap his fingers and we all appeared as we are. He set it up to happen over billions of years. Personally, I feel the second option is more "godlike" than the first.

[Cartesiantheater]

hes better than that,.......why would GOD rely on a process?

To inject the love and beauty and mannerisms which is evident in all creatures, plants etc, means that God lovingly made them all individually---------that is how i explain what makes everything magical and unique.



I know this has been picked up by others, but how do you know that God does not get JOY out of the processes he creates? I mean, every human being is a "process"- from the beginning of their birth to the end of their death they are changing, growing and learning. Does God not get joy out of every moment of our lives? Is he only fixated with the initial or final product? I think not. I would believe that God has created a dynamic world precisely because it was his pleasure to do so.

Not only is every single creature magical and unique, but every moment those creatures experience and change with are unique in their own ways.

[CELL]

In the beginning, there was nothing...

and than it exploded

[jeffweeder]

surely the process that God likes to observe in his creations is them living life.I'd be pissed off with myself if i had to wait a billion years to see all that i could make.

You can see God full of ideas about different life forms, and the amazing way they interact and survive,..and god bcoming impatient, waiting to observe them...baloney


God designed and operated on every living thing and then gave it life..

I see God as a master surgeon----hands on ,real time input into all the complexities of life.

I see him as an artist, carefully drawing in all that makes the picture what it is.
If God ,out of time,drew the picture and it was there, then its going to take no time at all for him to realise it.

[Sammy56]

I'd be pissed off with myself if i had to wait a billion years to see all that i could make.Yes, but, and I mean no offense by this, you aren't God. You don't know for sure how he would want to make his creation. You are mortal (at the moment at least). Our minds have trouble comprehending some as vast as a billion years, so none of us would want to wait that long for anything. But God is different. A billion years probably seems like nothing.


I see God as a master surgeon----hands on ,real time input into all the complexities of life. Evolution doesn't disprove or contradict that. It just shows the process through which life formed. It doesn't say God wasn't behind it. It doesn't say that God doesn't guide it. For all we know, God, before he even created the universe, he knew exactly how he was going to turn a few organic molecules into thinking, feeling, conscious humans. Why not?

You seem to feel that evolution takes away the beauty of the natural world. I feel the opposite. When you really study biology, you realize how complex life really is. How, even the smallest bacteria have complex processes taking place within them. And what goes on in humans in mindblowing. If anything, evolution would be one of God's greatest accomplishments.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

You can see God full of ideas about different life forms, and the amazing way they interact and survive,..and god bcoming impatient, waiting to observe them...baloney

Actually, no, I really can't imagine an infinite being becoming impatient. It seems that, when you're the oldest thing in the universe and you'll outlast everything that exists, patience would sorta come with the territory.

I also don't understand why God wouldn't find the interactions between single-celled organisms interesting. The behavior of humans (or even mammals) is not the be-all and end-all of behavior.

[Beatnik Bob]

Lol. Cause I seen it!
I knew Mary wasn't a virgin.



I am open for something else if people think another "higher power" created the universe. Its better then saying "It just happened".

Why couldn't it have just happened? The universe is completely random, only our brains try to create a pattern. Quantum physics has shown that much of the 'reality' around us is partly created by us, because its so random our brains cant understand it unless we alter it a bit.
This also goes for dreams. Many dreams, (not all) really are just random firings of the brain, and they are so random, and we want sense in our world so badly that we MAKE them into something that we can understand.
And scientific tests have shown that the brain cannot tell the difference between what it sees with its eyes, and what it imagines in its head.
And last but not leaste, there is enough energy in a single atom to destroy a planet.


Source: A bunch of interviews of scientists collected into the documenary called 'What the Bleep do We Know'.

[lazserus]

Ok, two parts to this really. First, we know that in the middle of our universe there a massive swarm of galaxies or whatever that resemble a giant fireball almost, well not literally, but that’s how it looks like in drawings and what not and we are far from that (our galaxy is). And that over the years science has said the universe is expanding, supposedly like a giant fireball is spreading or something outward.
Great start. You've blown holes in the hull of your ship before you even put it in water. You can't make intelligent claims with little to no knowledge on the subject.


A. Who can have SO much power that they can create such a massive fireball, energy burst...etc to create life? God.
Ignoring this whole fictional fireball you've concocted, why must there be a who? Have you not seen enough catastrophic weather on our planet alone to fathom the idea that nature is more powerful than humans want to accept? The weather patterns on earth are nothing more than ripples in a puddle compared to the colossal forces that happen in space.


B. Who has the power to create a universe period? God.
Pretty silly question. Considering you know as much about cosmology as my puppy knows about making lasagna, I'd say this statement is as true as 1+1=Santa Clause.


If you look at the "core" of this universe it looks like it was created by someone.
Actually, to the contrary. The universe is not an emaculate painting, but a sloppy and unforgiving place. The common theme for our universe is destruction. The imperfections are what allow life to exist.


Yeah science says "the big bang". Yes a massive amount of energy came from nothingness! The answer here must have been God! If you look at it you see a massive bright core and from there everything spreads out. and past that there is really nothing! Almost as if everything was created just for us!
Ah, the arrogance of religious men. The entire universe was created just for us!? If you would have made that comment in the 18th century it wouldn't have been so bad. You're taking the anthropic principle (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropic%20principle) and using it as fuel to fill your anthropocentric (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropocentric) SUV.


Some would say "Thats because its expanding dumb ass!" But if you look its blank for a MASSIVE amount of space past our universe before you even get to the "end" where the gases are they are talking about. Once again like it was created then stopped like someone made it that way for us to enjoy!
I'm going to save you from further embarrassments. You really should check this FAQ (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html) out.


A. The odds that out of the infinite amount of factors with all the galaxies, planets, stars there happen to be a planet that had 100% PERFECT conditions and people just HAPPEN to appear on it. Its impossible. God made it that way.
Infinite, huh? Well if you take infinite numbers in this magical model of yours then there's an ABSOLUTE guarantee that conditions on a planet will be conducive for our life. Which means your statement does more to disprove the necessity for God than support it. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt here and play the coin toss game with abiogensis on this planet.

Imagine one person flips a coin 20 times. The probability of it being heads or tails is roughly 50/50. If we're looking for heads specifically, the worst case scenario would be 0/20, but more likely 1/20. Now imagine 300 people are flipping their own coins at the same time. The probability for an increasing number of heads just shot through the roof. Now consider 300 million people doing it. The chances of NOT landing on heads is nearly impossible. This is how the probability of chemical bonds forming more complex bonds to create simple life become almost absolute.


B. Now that those odds are done. What are the odds that all the creatures, right down to our very blood cells immune systems...etc were made to work so perfectly (Well as can be expected?). That would take a miracle. Or God.
Who said anything about perfection? Far from it. It took millions and millions of years for life to evolve enough to become cognitive. Even after, where is this perfection? There is still a long list of genetic flaws, hence the increasing tally of diseases among Homo sapiens. Did you even know that humans are one of the most susceptible to disease of the entire animal kingdom? Let me know when you wake up from your "perfect" dream.


No one can possibly say everything that was made with its beyond infinite complexity , heck theres not really even a word for that, was created by nothing. It just "happened". And all these trillion in one odds happen over and over. Yeah right! Something would have to created all that. Its just to complex, not even the smartest person in the world can create anything this complex, no really. We can barley make robots that can walk right, yet were expected to believe things just magically happen!
There is no such thing as infinite complexity. Everything has limits, and infinity just doesn't work. Just because we don't understand everything doesn't mean it's finitely complicated. Humans are still infants when it comes to cosmic life. We just learned to crawl.

[jeffweeder]

You seem to feel that evolution takes away the beauty of the natural world

No it just takes the love out of how it got there in the first place.
Everything is different because it was DESIGNED differently.
God did it all at once, he artistically put as much time and creativity into a butterfly, for its purpose, than he did the human brain, for its purpose, and seeing the complexeties involved with both, he didnt leave this to chance.
The butterfly flew from his hand when he made it, just like he formed man and breathed life into him..and he walked away.

[evilwill]

Woah there...

First of all, you haven't offered a single bit of proof and you cannot. You have offered speculation, which is all the Big Bang theory is as well. Of course, that speculation is based upon a little more observation and fact than simply looking at the universe and saying:

'I don't know how this happened so it must have been some magical being out there.'

That assumption has far less validity than the Big Bang theory because it has nothing else to support it. Of course the BB theory isn't perfect and for all we truly know could be way off, but it's our best attempt so far at explaining things.

It is important to admit that we don't have all the answers but that's no reason to take giant leaps of illogical faith.

I'm not going to break down into specific points as what I would have said has been generally covered.


Just because you can't fathom the idea of something that existed and never had to be created.

The very same thing could be said for our universe instead of your god.

[Cherisa]

'I don't know how this happened so it must have been some magical being out there.'
The very same thing could be said for our universe instead of your god.

what if you knew this "magical being" on a personal level? How then would you explain it? And what if you knew him and I did not and I kept telling you you were living in a fairy world,surrounded by magical beings, but you knew something I did not?
I think it's pretty arrogant to think that humans "in all their glory" are the only beings in our universe, don't you? what if there is something bigger than ourselves? Sure God could have choosen any method to get us here, big bang, evolution, created us from dirt..
One of the mysteries I find very interesting is that the earth's crust is 80% iron. and "we" need iron to survive. were we made out of dirt? I'd say there is a pretty good possiblity, I'd like for a scientist to compare us and dirt and see how close of a match we are. :radish:

[TC]

I don't know, but I think our concept of time is what makes any understanding of God or his reasoning completely alien, I get the feeling that time ( at least in a cosmic sense) is really unimportant when looking at things in a spiritual perspective because it has no real meaning if the body wasn't around any longer. Maybe we just return to a harmonic balance that once existed long before all this physical stuff ( human kind) started.

I always had this picture of the universe as something like a large tuning fork ( if that makes sense) that has a certain pitch, and everything in it vibrates in a harmonic tone, maybe even held together by it. Probably to far fetched, right?

[August_Sonereal]

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

Go under SCIENCE and go to Holograms

Go under SPACE and look up Eternity and Big Rip

[Cartesiantheater]

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

Go under SCIENCE and go to Holograms

Go under SPACE and look up Eternity and Big Rip

I read a few lines from the hologram section and then couldn't take it any more.


First, there’s a very, VERY peculiar thing about the place we live in – something so weird and profound it sends shivers down your spine. For in fact, the Universe seems to be ‘fine-tuned’ to make life possible!


At THIS point I just couldn't bear it. There is nothing miraculus about the "fine-tuning" of the universe- that is, there is no need to resort to non-mundane explanations.

If the universe weren't as it is, we wouln't be here.

No one ever says "the universe is so fine tuned that rocks can exist! Oh my god! There must be something strange going on!" do they?

Why not? Simple. We assume that life is special because we are alive. But we ALL operate the SAME way that every other peice of matter does- according to the laws of physics.

If there is nothing magical about rocks forming, there is nothing magical about life forming. Life IS Chemistry. Chemistry (in the sense I am refering) is nothing but physics, specifically the physics of chemical reactions, kenetics, and thermodynamics. Nothing miraculous about it.

If fire or rocks are not magical, neither is life.

Now, I could continue and offer up the various theories that throw that interpretation of the antropic argument into doubt, but I don't think it's necessary. We abide by the same physical laws as rocks. We are not any more special than rocks are- that is, even though we are complex machines, we are nothing special. We are chemistry.

So why is it such a big deal that we are here?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

No it just takes the love out of how it got there in the first place.
Everything is different because it was DESIGNED differently.

Why has no one responded to this?!

Jeff, think about it for a second. Evolution states that we slowly, slowly transformed from microscopic, single-celled organisms into beings intelligent enough to debate God's will. You don't think God would take joy in that? You don't think he'd love us for our strength and ingenuity?

C'mon. I know you're dedicated to what you believe, but "God wouldn't love us unless he made us exactly how I think he did!" doesn't make much sense.

[evilwill]

what if you knew this "magical being" on a personal level? How then would you explain it? And what if you knew him and I did not and I kept telling you you were living in a fairy world,surrounded by magical beings, but you knew something I did not?

Until one can prove they actually know such a being, there is not reason not to assume something far more rational like they are making it up or are suffering some form of delusion.


I think it's pretty arrogant to think that humans "in all their glory" are the only beings in our universe, don't you? what if there is something bigger than ourselves? Sure God could have choosen any method to get us here, big bang, evolution, created us from dirt..

I think it's pretty arrogant of the religious to believe that they somehow know everything about the universe and our creation and that everyone else is wrong. I'm more than willing to admit it's possible there are creatures smarter and greater than humans out there but I'm not about to take a giant leap in logic and assume one is responsible for us without any form of proof to back up such a notion.


One of the mysteries I find very interesting is that the earth's crust is 80% iron. and "we" need iron to survive. were we made out of dirt? I'd say there is a pretty good possiblity, I'd like for a scientist to compare us and dirt and see how close of a match we are. :radish:

Here's another fact for you. The most common element in the universe is hydrogen but humans are carbon based. Why weren't we made out of hydrogen since it's all around us?

I think you'll find there's a lot of carbon in dirt since most organic life on this planet will break down into the earth, depositing this element. That certainly does not mean we are made of it. Rather, it is made of us, in a very loose sense.

[jeffweeder]

You don't think God would take joy in that?

Well i sort of said no in post 20. I dont believe God sat back and watched his creation go from single cell to us. It would be like us watching water till it boils.


C'mon. I know you're dedicated to what you believe, but "God wouldn't love us unless he made us exactly how I think he did!"

The best part when you create something is,

is to get in and drive it

Watch it fly

hear it sing

play it

eat it.

etc


I'm more than willing to admit it's possible there are creatures smarter and greater than humans out there but I'm not about to take a giant leap in logic and assume one is responsible for us without any form of proof to back up such a notion.

Ive just made the decision to trust in it, because of what i feel ive learned from it, and what ive experienced.

I try to be careful in what i believe , i feel ive got a very good reason to believe it.

It doesnt seem like an illogical one to me.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Well i sort of said no in post 20. I dont believe God sat back and watched his creation go from single cell to us. It would be like us watching water till it boils.

See, this is arrogance. It's arrogance because you assume life and the universe was boring to God until mankind came along, at which point it became fascinating. Why is this? You don't think bacteria can be fascinating to an infinite mind?

I'm assuming an infinite mind would find bacteria interesting, because if not, I doubt said mind would find humanity interesting. Compared to infinity, there's not much difference in scope between us and yeast.


The best part when you create something is,

is to get in and drive it

The best part of creating a car.

But that's a ridiculous comparison. A car is a static thing; it doesn't feel, doesn't adapt. And I don't mean "adapt" in an evolutionary sense - I mean the adaptations people go through as they live and learn and grow up. Based on what we know about humanity, I find it impossible to believe that God wants us to be mere machines, to be used. We change, we get better when we can, and he rejoices in that growth because he loves us. People don't do that to their cars.

Think of it in terms of children. When a woman gives birth, she may want to care for her children and keep them close, but a good mother knows that a child has to face the world and fight their own battles, and grow stronger for it. So a good mother let's her children evolve.

[jeffweeder]

See, this is arrogance. It's arrogance because you assume life and the universe was boring to God until mankind came along,


You look it from the assumption of a large gap between A cell and a human..........I dont look at it like that.

I see God creating animals and man on the very same day.
Isee GOD spending an eternity on everything in a way.


But that's a ridiculous comparison. A car is a static thing;

Why use that one then, the point is still the same when using the the bird

to see it fly or

hear it sing.

Sure the process of watching a car get built from scratch would be interesting, but it would become boring once you know all there is to know about it. can only focus on it for so long.

But the purpose of this creation is to get in and drive, wether you like it or not this is the moment...and you will never bore so easily utilising it.

God wants his birds to sing and fly,
but just look at the care , colours and the detail ----you cant say he wasnt interested in that part of the process.

[nrj]

Well i sort of said no in post 20. I dont believe God sat back and watched his creation go from single cell to us. It would be like us watching water till it boils.

Ive just made the decision to trust in it, because of what i feel ive learned from it, and what ive experienced.

I try to be careful in what i believe , i feel ive got a very good reason to believe it.

It doesnt seem like an illogical one to me. You mean except for the fact that it doesn't have any evidence behind it?


I see God creating animals and man on the very same day.
I'm not sure that's what the Bible says.


You look it from the assumption of a large gap between A cell and a human..........I dont look at it like that. And why is that? I'm really hoping for an answer that doesn't include federal inmate Hovind, random creationist website or a priest.


Isee GOD spending an eternity on everything in a way. He can't, unless he really wants to. He's omnipotent. If he wants to spend an eternity on his creations, then it's because he doesn't want to do it in a nano second.

[jeffweeder]

I'm not sure that's what the Bible says.


Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


He can't, unless he really wants to. He's omnipotent. If he wants to spend an eternity on his creations, then it's because he doesn't want to do it in a nano second.


he dwells out of time, so hes had an eternity with the idea.



You mean except for the fact that it doesn't have any evidence behind it?


I thought so, i really did.

[Cherisa]

[QUOTE]Until one can prove they actually know such a being, there is not reason not to assume something far more rational like they are making it up or are suffering some form of delusion.

You and I both KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt (hopefully you do)there is no way to prove God....sigh* this proof thing is getting a bit ridiculous.....I can only tell you my experiences with God and then you can either say "hey, maybe there is something to this or walk away" whichever you choose to do is fine..


I think it's pretty arrogant of the religious to believe that they somehow know everything about the universe and our creation and that everyone else is wrong. I'm more than willing to admit it's possible there are creatures smarter and greater than humans out there but I'm not about to take a giant leap in logic and assume one is responsible for us without any form of proof to back up such a notion.

I don't think because "religious" people believe in a creator that they feel like they know everyhing about the universe...That's a very broad statement..Anyone who claimed to know everything about the universe, would be arrogant as hell. I don't believe we know much at all, and possibly what we do think we know is mistaken...




[QUOTE]See, this is arrogance. It's arrogance because you assume life and the universe was boring to God until mankind came along, at which point it became fascinating. Why is this? You don't think bacteria can be fascinating to an infinite mind?
No it's not arrogant, not in the least, it's arrogant to say "we did it ourselves" got up enough wherewithal to EVOLVE!There is no thing but us, that is arrgance.
I
'm assuming an infinite mind would find bacteria interesting, because if not, I doubt said mind would find humanity interesting. Compared to infinity, there's not much difference in scope between us and yeast.

sorry about you PF , but I am quite a bit more interesting than yeast..

[Sammy56]

No it's not arrogant, not in the least, it's arrogant to say "we did it ourselves" got up enough wherewithal to EVOLVE!There is no thing but us, that is arrgance.I don't think that's what Foelhe meant. I think he is calling jeff arrogant because he is assuming God could only enjoy his creation if it was created quickly, but would have been bored if it had taken billions of years, as the scientific evidence says. I have to agree with him to. It is arrogant for jeff to assume he understands the mind of God enough to say what God would have found boring. Just because it would be boring for a human, doesn't mean it would be for God.

[Cartesiantheater]

Boredom is a character flaw, because there is ALWAYS something there to pay attention to. If you are bored by the incredible action at the quantum level of a single atom, then you are by no means a perfect creature.

God cannot get bored...ever...except by choice...(but to make that choice would demonstrate a flaw in character, so a PERFECT God could not make that choice, and so again, God cannot get bored)... if God is defined to be perfect, that is (or as close to perfect as anything logically can get).

[Tyler Durden]

I think people should stop trying to humanize God... you can't put yourself in his perspective so you shouldn't try to. How can God get bored? He is supposed to be perfect, like C.T. said, so it's more the question of WHY would God get bored? He supposedly created everything the way it is, and since he's omniscient, if he were to get bored it would be entirely out of his own choosing. He would have set things up to make him bored, because he knows how everything is going to turn out anyway. Do you see what I mean?

[jinxz]

Christian ascetics even listed boredom as one of the deadly sins: acedia. Today we call it sloth.

[Cherisa]

I don't think that's what Foelhe meant. I think he is calling jeff arrogant because he is assuming God could only enjoy his creation if it was created quickly, but would have been bored if it had taken billions of years, as the scientific evidence says. I have to agree with him to. It is arrogant for jeff to assume he understands the mind of God enough to say what God would have found boring. Just because it would be boring for a human, doesn't mean it would be for God.
Oh my bad then< I misunderstood the context.. after reading it again I see that's what he meant. I am sorry PF..

[jeffweeder]

I said a few posts back that God was interested in what he was making, its obvious due to the complexity and beauty of it all.-incredible intuitive instincts -fine tuned to survive.Stunning in appearance and taste.

I believe he formed everything individually , put his heart and soul into all things.

People seem to be saying he only did this with the first cell and then sat back and watched all of it come about-slowly.--

I dont see what time has to with what God wants to do.
He is quite capable of forming animals etc in a twinkling of an eye, as hes had an eternity to see the process

Some seem to be saying that God looks forward to seeing how it all evolves together-like as if he didnt already know what would happen next..


So God puts on this big show for himself, when he already knows the outcome?
So who is he putting the show on for, if not for himsef?

That must be us, as we only have the ability, the capability to look after everything.


So if its all for us, then we never missed out on anything, things didnt become extinct before we had the chance to enjoy them.................and God bought to the man all the animals that he had made..that day.. and Adam named it.

[Tyler Durden]

things didnt become extinct before we had the chance to enjoy them

What about dinosaurs? I don't think that we were around to see them, let alone enjoy them alive. Conspiracy?


Some seem to be saying that God looks forward to seeing how it all evolves together-like as if he didnt already know what would happen next..

So God puts on this big show for himself, when he already knows the outcome?

Some seem to be saying that God looks forward to seeing how all humanity acts together-like as if he didn't already know what would happen next...

(omniscience)

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I said a few posts back that God was interested in what he was making, its obvious due to the complexity and beauty of it all.-incredible intuitive instincts -fine tuned to survive.Stunning in appearance and taste.

God is in all things. Of course there's beauty there. That doesn't mean it didn't develop in its own way.


People seem to be saying he only did this with the first cell and then sat back and watched all of it come about-slowly.

See, I don't necessarily think that. I think his hand guided things. I just think there was growth. Sorta like us, today.


I dont see what time has to with what God wants to do.

Well, yeah, but that goes both ways. Why would God rush things? He's got all the time in the world, literally, and then some.


So God puts on this big show for himself, when he already knows the outcome?
So who is he putting the show on for, if not for himsef?

But it's not just a show. Or at least, that's what I believe. There's an underlying purpose to the whole thing, which we can learn from.


That must be us, as we only have the ability, the capability to look after everything.

But how do you know we can look after everything? What if there's something out there we can't perceive? And why do you assume there has to be only one group out there that can enjoy this show?


So if its all for us, then we never missed out on anything, things didnt become extinct before we had the chance to enjoy them

But that assumes the whole thing is nothing but spectacle, without purpose. If there's an underlying lesson, maybe the dinosaurs went extinct to teach us some sort of lesson. Or maybe it's not just about us.


What about dinosaurs? I don't think that we were around to see them, let alone enjoy them alive. Conspiracy?

I think that's what Jeff's saying. He thinks the dinosaurs were alive when man walked the earth.

[evilwill]

You and I both KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt (hopefully you do)there is no way to prove God....sigh* this proof thing is getting a bit ridiculous.....I can only tell you my experiences with God and then you can either say "hey, maybe there is something to this or walk away" whichever you choose to do is fine..

Of course. I just place a lot more significance on proof rather than faith. I'm just saying I'll never be convinced by anything less than proof.



I don't think because "religious" people believe in a creator that they feel like they know everyhing about the universe...That's a very broad statement..Anyone who claimed to know everything about the universe, would be arrogant as hell. I don't believe we know much at all, and possibly what we do think we know is mistaken...

Indeed it was a broad statement. Of course it was only a generalisation, mainly targeted at the fundamentalists that believe the words of the bible have set everything we know in stone.

What bothers me is that so many religious can believe in a creator and think everything else is wrong but they cannot support such. I'm a very practical and realistic person so things like that tend to bother me :p

[Tyler Durden]

Of course. I just place a lot more significance on proof rather than faith. I'm just saying I'll never be convinced by anything less than proof.

I am the same way. What is the point of anyone trying to convince you of something supernatural by using supernatural things as proof? I want some hard evidence.

[jeffweeder]

Some seem to be saying that God looks forward to seeing how all humanity acts together-like as if he didn't already know what would happen next...

Well thats right, but God has more to be interested in--like how his creations interact , once their alive. It was sort of the point of why he went through the process ( and a very delicate and well thought out one ) of making them in the first place.


But how do you know we can look after everything?

What other species would be able to organise and think through a rescue plan, or even be concerned what is happening to anything else? There;s people out their that will save just about anything

[Philosopher Foelhe]

What other species would be able to organise and think through a rescue plan, or even be concerned what is happening to anything else?

Possibly one we don't know about.

But that's not my point. Why does it have to come down to one species above all others? It just seems like your idea revolves around humanity being the be-all and the end-all, and that just doesn't work for me.

[jeffweeder]

It just seems like your idea revolves around humanity being the be-all and the end-all, and that just doesn't work for me.

well surround yourself with pets then,
Adam was happy but.........when he saw the women he knew that God had nailed it on the head for him.

[Tyler Durden]

Well thats right, but God has more to be interested in--like how his creations interact , once their alive. It was sort of the point of why he went through the process ( and a very delicate and well thought out one ) of making them in the first place.

So you are admitting that our existence is some cosmic game?

If God knows everything, then nothing will come as a surprise. How can you justify that we would be more interesting than simple chemical reactions if God knows just as well everything about us and our futures as he does those simple reactions? There is no surprise and no doubt, no suspense for God.

[DontBeAfraid]

What other species would be able to organise and think through a rescue plan, or even be concerned what is happening to anything else?ants..... zing.

seriously, 25 charaters.

[Cartesiantheater]

well surround yourself with pets then,
Adam was happy but.........when he saw the women he knew that God had nailed it on the head for him.

So Jeff, you're telling us that God created the millions of different types of bacteria so that we humans could marvel at them?

Wait... humans have only known about bacteria for a miniscule part of our history... something doesn't jive here...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

well surround yourself with pets then

Wha... either you aren't reading me, or this is a pretty clumsy response.

Humanity's perceptions are not necessarily the only important things out there. Okay? Which means just because we don't find something interesting, doesn't mean it bores God. C'mon.

And the whole point of me keeping tons of pets and ignoring humans would be to place my focus on animals. That would be my focus, which would still be a human's focus. Which is not the be-all and end-all of the universe. Which was my whole point. Thank you.

[jeffweeder]

If God knows everything, then nothing will come as a surprise. How can you justify that we would be more interesting than simple chemical reactions if God knows just as well everything about us and our futures as he does those simple reactions?

Thats very true.
How can I justify?

Man is different, unique, said to be made in the image of God.
He was given ability to and responsibility to look after creation.

Ever seen the planet of the apes?
couldnt happen.

Im not saying God is not interested in everything else , looks like he took a lot of care and had an eye for detail.
-------------



But how do you know we can look after everything?



All i know is that men/women-humans have a level of intelligence, that if we put our minds and hearts into it, we could look after the planet--we could save the bear or save the trees , find out what is wiping out a species etc.
No other creature that i know of has this level of awareness and intelligence, not by a long shot.


----

ants..... zing.

seriously, 25 charaters.
-------------


Ants...........This is pure instinct, they are not about saving the whale. It would appear that they are not carrying it away to operate on it,or to find out why it was beached, but to finish it off-

---------------



So Jeff, you're telling us that God created the millions of different types of bacteria so that we humans could marvel at them?


Am I? Well as you say we do now, and we are the only ones who can gain an understanding about it, and this is a good thing



Why does it have to come down to one species above all others?

just in ability and a level of intelligance to be the only ones that can oversee everything else. This would be an interest that God can find in know other creature--the ability to be sort of like him.



It just seems like your idea revolves around humanity being the be-all and the end-all, and that just doesn't work for me.

Just like people having more interest (and things in common) with his own offspring, than his pet dog thats all.
everything is beautiful in its own way.- Im just saying that God MAY take more interest in us, as we are made in his image. Animals are ruled by instinct, 9 times out of ten you know what and why they do things.... People are mysterious.........................who knows what descision they are going to make.

UNPREDictable-open to choice, not instinct (conformisim)

[Havoc Angel]

Why does earth need mankind as a overseer anyways? If it wasn't for man this planet would be fine. Why did God put man 'in charge' of the planet when he already knew how much we'll devastate the place? It's like putting a pyromaniac in charge of a fireworks warehouse and leaving him a box of matches to boot.

[jeffweeder]

Why does earth need mankind as a overseer anyways? If it wasn't for man this planet would be fine

good point... Im too smashed to respnd right now.......sorry but im crashing out

[Cherisa]

Why does earth need mankind as a overseer anyways? If it wasn't for man this planet would be fine. Why did God put man 'in charge' of the planet when he already knew how much we'll devastate the place? It's like putting a pyromaniac in charge of a fireworks warehouse and leaving him a box of matches to boot.
actually you are right, the earth doesn't need anything..not us not ants.. BUT, since we are already here it adds nothing to the arguement eh?

[nrj]

actually you are right, the earth doesn't need anything..not us not ants.. BUT, since we are already here it adds nothing to the arguement eh? It does shoot down jeffweeders argument, and I think that was the point.

[Cartesiantheater]

---------------
Am I? Well as you say we do now, and we are the only ones who can gain an understanding about it, and this is a good thing

But most of the people that have ever lived never saw or knew of bacteria. So how could God have made bacteria for HUMANITY to marvel at when MOST of humanity never had the chance to anyway?

Do you think that maybe God cares about the bacteria he created?

Later on in this response you hinted that it could be that God cares about us either MORE or in a different way than he does most of the other creatures. I personally have no theological issue with the idea that God cares about us in a different way (just not necessarily more or less- he is infinite, after all).

But I just don't see how God caring about humans in a special way implies that evolution could not have happened.



People are mysterious.........................who knows what decision they are going to make.

UNPREDictable-open to choice, not instinct (conformisim)

Work by Skinner and others suggests that this unpredictability may not be so much a result of our conscious decisions as it is the result of a physical trigger mechanism that happens before the conscious "choice." (implying that "choice" is more a matter of a product of motion than a cause of motion- motion initially caused by some physical trigger). Although it has been suggested that there might be enough time to veto "decisions" made before the conscious had its say ( but there has been no observed evidence for this according to my most recent education on the subject).


But the point is, NOTHING would be mysterious to God anyway. Not even our behavior, complex as it is.

To God, we still are the same as everything else, except that our behavior involves much more complex social, intellectual and artistic endeavors. If God is the god of the Bible, then yes, in many ways we are more like him than the other animals (which satisfies the whole "made in God's image" thing). But we are still made of the same mechanical structures of the other animals, from balls to brains.

There is no real conflict (for me) between "made in God's image" and evolution, no more than there is a conflict between a windmill being mechanical and a computer being mechanical. Both are made out of physical material, although each are used in extremely different ways. In that respect, humans and ants are both a product of physical happenings (including evolution), but humans are worthy of the designation of "soul" while ants certainly are not ("soul" in the sense that the mono-theists speak of, mind you).

Although you may choose not to believe that, where's the theological hang up with this idea?

[Cherisa]

It does shoot down jeffweeders argument, and I think that was the point.

No it doesn't not at all..God or the Earth needs nothing. Creation was done out of love.. always has always will...:kids:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

No it doesn't not at all..God or the Earth needs nothing.

... Which shoots down Jeff's point.

If the Earth doesn't need anyone to save it (which you agree with) then humanity's role in the cosmos is not to save Earth. Jeff says we're supposed to oversee the Earth, but there's nothing to oversee. The whole thing runs itself. So, by your argument and by Havok Angel's, Jeff is wrong.

[Cherisa]

... Which shoots down Jeff's point.

If the Earth doesn't need anyone to save it (which you agree with) then humanity's role in the cosmos is not to save Earth. Jeff says we're supposed to oversee the Earth, but there's nothing to oversee. The whole thing runs itself. So, by your argument and by Havok Angel's, Jeff is wrong.

But you missed the whole point...maybe the Earth was created for us.....

[Cartesiantheater]

But you missed the whole point...maybe the Earth was created for us.....

Then why is there so much in the Earth that is completely irrelevant to us on any level, like the undiscovered organisms hiding in multi thousand degree environments that we may never find, or those in the deep reaches of the sea too far down to ever be seen or interacted with in any way?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

But you missed the whole point...maybe the Earth was created for us.....

I didn't miss the whole point. I just think it's a little arrogant to believe this. Jeffweeder tried to give a reason that mankind could be the point of all things, but it didn't work logically.

I still stand by the belief that thinking God only does things for us is a limited way to look at things. CT has that level of the argument taken care of quite nicely, so I don't need to go into it.

[jeffweeder]

Do you think that maybe God cares about the bacteria he created?
Well he thought it important enough to incorporate into his plan.


But I just don't see how God caring about humans in a special way implies that evolution could not have happened.

If it was the point of creation --to give us somewhere to live, then God having to wait 4billion years to get to that point sounds unGod like.

Im just enforcing the point that it may have been for us.
dont we have everthing we need, right there ready under our feet.

Horses were meant to be ridden, oxen to plough, dogs to gather the sheep, its all for us to utilise it seems.



Then why is there so much in the Earth that is completely irrelevant to us on any level,

It may be that it is relevant to something else in an important way, which in turn is relevant, maybe vital to us



If the Earth doesn't need anyone to save it


It appears that in this day and age we are needed to do something to save it.

[Sammy56]

If it was the point of creation --to give us somewhere to live, then God having to wait 4billion years to get to that point sounds unGod like.But, why? Honestly, evolution seems more God like to me. God is perfect. Time means nothing to him. He would have made his creation slowly, guiding the complex process to evolve into something that became truly conscience with thoughts, ideas, and emotions. The idea that God took his time and worked through laws of science that we can now understand is so much more beautiful than God just snapping his fingers and everything appearing as is. It shows immense forethought and dedication for the creation.

[Cornish Maid]

God loves us, we are His kids.

You probably love your pet dogs and cats a lot but your kids always come first.

Giving your kids responsibilities like looking after a flower bed and their animals is character building.

We were given the responsibility to look after the Earth.

[jeffweeder]

]But, why? Honestly, evolution seems more God like to me. God is perfect. Time means nothing to him.

Exactly, time means nothing to him, its not needed,he dont live in it--- so 4 billion is out of the equation



He would have made his creation slowly, guiding the complex process to evolve into something that became truly conscience with thoughts, ideas, and emotions. The idea that God took his time and worked through laws of science that we can now understand is so much more beautiful than God just snapping his fingers and everything appearing as is.


But if God doesnt live in time, at first it would appear as if he did snap his fingers and everything came into being, because all he did or will do will be and was done out of the realm of time, and is all ready already----He has had an eternity to deal with all the details, now he brings it and places it into the realm of time.


It shows immense forethought and dedication for the creation.

An eternitys worth. But his dedication didnt stop there.
Allow me to tell you some good news regarding your death, and who will be there to save you from it.::p:
__________________

"As far as the stars are from Earth is the distance of your wonderfulness."

why thankyou Sammy :dunno:

[/QUOTE]

[Cartesiantheater]

Well he thought it important enough to incorporate into his plan.

Did it occur to you that his overal plan possibly involves numerous subplans for different creatures?




If it was the point of creation --to give us somewhere to live, then God having to wait 4billion years to get to that point sounds unGod like.

Why? Isn't he "the Ancient of Days?" How do you know that God only had ONE purpose with all of creation (including stars that we will never see because the observed expansion of the universe precludes us from ever viewing them)


Im just enforcing the point that it may have been for us.
dont we have everthing we need, right there ready under our feet.

Yes, including teeth that don't fit inside our jaws, organs that have little to no use, organs that are prone to disease and/or corruption, dehbilitating genetic diseases, bacterial infections, numourous parasites that offer nothing to us yet are remarkably well "designed" for circumventing our protective measures and avoiding detection, and on and on.


Horses were meant to be ridden, oxen to plough, dogs to gather the sheep, its all for us to utilise it seems.

Maybe that's due to our own cleverness? Were sticks therefore designed so that Chimps could use them to harvest termites?

What about, say a rhinosaurous? Or, even more compelling, what is the purpose of a Velvet worm in relation to humanity? Hagfish? Viperfish? What was the purpose in relation to humans of the dinosaurs?

There is MUCH that is nuetral to humanity in this world. I am amazed that you don't see it. I haven't even mentioned the billions of bacteria that NEVER interact with humans or even other creatures (ones living in geysers, for exlample).

Clearly, looking at the immense planet (and the MUCH larger universe, much of which we will NEVER see) God had a lot more on his mind than JUST people (not to say that people weren't a special creation for God). I mean, to deny that is REALLY akin to burying your head in the sand. No extrapolation necessary. The amount of information in this world DWARFES the amount that ALL of humanity will ever see, learn about, or interact with on ANY level.





It may be that it is relevant to something else in an important way, which in turn is relevant, maybe vital to us

Explain to me how stars that we will never see that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light (due to the expansion of space) could be relavent to ANYTHING that relates to us please. Keep in mind that due to space expanding faster than light, NO information of ANY KIND will EVER interact with ANYTHING from our portion of the universe (of course, this is assuming there are stars outside of our vantage point, which matches up with nearly every thing in astrophysics, but that IS a potential escape from this argument).

But what about, say SCR 1845-6357 (companion star of DEN 0255-4700 found on March 22 of last year)? This star is 16.197 light years away from our solar system. We can't even see it in the night sky without a great deal of help from technology. It has NO affect on us in terms of light, gravity, nothing. Yet it's there, orbiting with its companion as if we don't exist. How can that star have ANYTHING to do with humanity? Now, consider how much larger the universe is. There are likely billions of stars we will never see. Why would God do this if all of creation revolves around us? (hint: I've already given you a good answer several months ago, but it requires God letting physics develope us- since you won't believe that, you can't use that argument here :D )



Now, remember, I'm not necessarily asking you to admit evolution; I'm only arguning (at this point) that humanity was NOT the sole purpose for creation, because much of creation will never interact with us or anything that interacts with us on any level (in fact, some things are impossible to interact with our part of the universe due to the limits put on information travel ==> the speed of light, whilst the space itself moves away faster than that speed, in a way)

I'm saying that that belief is a very very simplified view of reality, most likely brought about by the simpler ways of thinking of the ancients that has survived through time because of the potency of religious tradition.

One more thing:



Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.



I think God is trying to tell you something, Jeff...

[Sammy56]

Exactly, time means nothing to him, its not needed,he dont live in it--- so 4 billion is out of the equationYou're right at first. It is not needed. But that does not through billions of years out of the equation. Quite the opposite. It would matter not to God if it was done in 1 nanosecond or 100 billion years. It's the same to him. But maybe he chose it for us. He chose to create the universe over time so humans could learn of it's beginnings and study the complex process taking place, not only on Earth, but in galaxies billions of light years away.


at first it would appear as if he did snap his fingers and everything came into beingIn a way, yes. Most scientists agree there is a definite beginning to our universe. There is one moment in our time where we go from nothing to something. I'm not going to say it was God, but that is possible.


He has had an eternity to deal with all the details,So what's another 14 billion years to evolve a beautiful universe and the creatures that live in it?

[logicpolice]

Couple of points to make here. Every microbe on the planet, bacteria, plankton, yeast, spores all of these things form the bases from which all other life is supported.
Everything that exists forms a symbiotic relationship with everything else.

Seeds don’t just turn in to flowers; first they have to build substructures. They sprout, put down roots, build stem, produce leaves and continue doing so until they are capable of sustaining the flowers that represent their procreation.

Likewise it is highly likely that the Earth has spent 4 billion years building a network capable of supporting its own attempts at procreation. Intelligent life is the only thing that could make it possible for life to escape the confines of its thin atmosphere and spread life out into its neighboring solar system or even its galaxy. The desire to do so is already within us.

We are the knowers and the doers of the planet and finding ways to help stabbelize it are not out of the question. We could be its immune system in many ways. But most of what we did would always be in our own best interest for survival. I think we are special and we do have a purpose. But for me it is what it is and however long it has taken is irrelevant.

Of course if you do believe in a god that exist forever, 4 billion years probably is a nanosecond.

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/sig.jpg

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Well he thought it important enough to incorporate into his plan.

Uh... right. So doesn't it seem silly to limit God's plan to just us? If that bacteria is important to the plan, couldn't it also be important to God?


If it was the point of creation --to give us somewhere to live, then God having to wait 4billion years to get to that point sounds unGod like.

Jeff, why? How is that unGodlike? Is God impatient? That doesn't jive with an eternal being.


Im just enforcing the point that it may have been for us.

You keep saying that, but why? Doesn't it seem limited to confine God to one single purpose? You'd think an omniscient God would be able to work on several levels at once.


Horses were meant to be ridden, oxen to plough, dogs to gather the sheep, its all for us to utilise it seems.

... Right. Because that's been working so well for us.

We're doing damage to the Earth. If the Earth was built for the sole purpose of sustaining us, how would that be possible?


It appears that in this day and age we are needed to do something to save it.

Small adjustment - it appears that in this day and age, we are needed to do something to save it from us.

We're not the necessary part of this equation. We're the damaging part. We need to learn to work in harmony with the rest of Earth, or we'll destroy it. It's a subtle difference from saving it, but it's also the one that'll determine whether or not we actually succeed.


Exactly, time means nothing to him, its not needed,he dont live in it--- so 4 billion is out of the equation

... Huh?

God is infinite, time has no meaning to him, so he can't possibly wait four billion years? How does that make any sense?


But if God doesnt live in time, at first it would appear as if he did snap his fingers and everything came into being, because all he did or will do will be and was done out of the realm of time

That was a possibility, yes. Another possibility was that God allowed things to flourish naturally. He could've stepped outside of time, then stepped back in at the time when the first humans evolved. Why not? He's omnipotent, it's allowed.

I don't see how those two theories are any different. Except, of course, the evidence supports ours.

[jeffweeder]

Small adjustment - it appears that in this day and age, we are needed to do something to save it from us.

We're not the necessary part of this equation. We're the damaging part. We need to learn to work in harmony with the rest of Earth, or we'll destroy it. It's a subtle difference from saving it, but it's also the one that'll determine whether or not we actually succeed.


AAAH now we getting somewhere, that was spot on PF.
So if we are so out of whack--which we are, this will cause the earth and creation to start taking a turn for the worse, as our warped desensitised spirit is only interested in greed and rape---we are doing the opposite to what i suggested about we must do as overseers. At the same time without the human race on this planet, the rest of creation would get along just fine probably. Though im a bit concerned about beached whales. People always seem to come to the rescue

But we are here...and it makes more sense that we are--we were meant to be the icing on the cake i think...but there are lessons to be learned.
We show our worth with this, then God being busy ,always had this in store for those that love...


"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."

wow---we havent even begun and cant begin to imagine whats coming next. Thats an awesome thought.

Its already prepared, which means we dont have to wait 4 billion years for it.
no limbo for when we totally destroy this one.

so this leads me to believe that man does have more responsibility than he is willing to take on board.

You can understand the "repent "part of scripture more clearly now, God doesnt muck around when he puts his finger on the real problem--our lack of responsibility and love toward each other ,--the animals,- the earth, and everything in it--and to God himself who made it all possible.

We were made in the image of God, but theres little reflextion of it.
This is prooving fatal to our world.

[Cartesiantheater]

"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."




First of all, what verse is that?

Second, WHERE in that verse does it say ALL THAT WAS EVER CREATED was made for those who love God? ...NOWHERE.

It says ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR... it does NOT say everything that God ever made was created specifically for mankind. It simply does NOT say that.

That verse, if taken exactly as it reads, says that everything that God has prepared for us will be given to us (assuming "us" are those that love him). It simply DOES NOT say that everything ever made was made for us. It just doesn't Jeff.


That verse simply IS NOT talking about ALL OF CREATION. It is talking ONLY about those SPECIFIC THINGS that were prepared for mankind. NOR does it mention HOW LONG IT TOOK to prepare them anyway. (but again, that verse is NOT talking about all of creation- at least it is NOT stated in that verse).

If I were a hardcore Christian like back in the day, I woud interpret that verse as refering to the rewards AFTER this life...

[jeffweeder]

First of all, what verse is that?

1corinthians 2:9


If I were a hardcore Christian like back in the day, I woud interpret that verse as refering to the rewards AFTER this life...:cool14:


Thats exactly right , i think it does to, I thought i had made that clear---see;


wow---we havent even begun and cant begin to imagine whats coming next. Thats an awesome thought.Its already prepared, which means we dont have to wait 4 billion years for it.
no limbo for when we totally destroy this one. :wink:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

... Okay, that's stretching. A lot. Transitions to the afterlife have nothing to do with the development of this planet.

[daylatedollarshort]

Attempting to prove that God created the universe seems like a exercise in futility. We all have our favorite theories, of course; and although it's often fun and interesting to share them, I doubt that anyone is likely to present indisputable evidence or proof that can settle the question once and for all...for everyone.

The question certainly does inspire many interesting responses, though. :)

[Cartesiantheater]

1corinthians 2:9

:cool14:


Thats exactly right , i think it does to, I thought i had made that clear---see;

:wink:

Whoops. Didn't catch the "after we destroy this one" part...


::is an assjester::


http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/954/assjesterud5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


But if you remember my old argument from the past (about theh galaxies' relationship with our creation), God really has no reason to use his defined laws of physics for the new Earth, and further, maybe he's going to make an entirely new UNIVERSE? Who knows...

[DontBeAfraid]

Ants...........This is pure instinct, Ants display many varied and complex behaviors from herding and "domesticating" caterpillers, to waging wars and taking slaves, to using homemade glueguns(this is true) to build nests, to constructing express travel lanes. So it would seem that your statement is equivant to: complex behavior is a result of genetics.


Horses were meant to be ridden, oxen to plough, dogs to gather the sheep, its all for us to utilise it seems.And HIV is meant to kill niggers and fags?(sarcasm folks, I am using the words to illustrate a point)


Exactly, time means nothing to him, its not needed,he dont live in it--- so 4 billion is out of the equationAn eternal, motivated, all powerful being will eventually do everything an infinite number of times. Including staring at the earth for 4 billion years.

I find myself increasingly disturbed and facinated by the contradictions my existance and reality place before me on an unending basis.

[Havoc Angel]

An eternal, motivated, all powerful being will eventually do everything an infinite number of times.

No, no, no, DBA. You're thinking too small here. An infinite all powerful being already has done everything infinite times. Yes, god already did an infinite amount of things each infinite times. And even this description is infinitesimal in comparison to what an infinite all powerful, all knowing, etc being is.

Now with such a vast projection surface basically everything can be true, including for example that this God created the universe 6000 years ago and made it look to be older or that God is completely irrelevant for human existence.

Or am I too vague here?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

An eternal, motivated, all powerful being will eventually do everything an infinite number of times.


No, no, no, DBA. You're thinking too small here. An infinite all powerful being already has done everything infinite times.

One small problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes there's nothing God won't do. Otherwise, yeah, totally agree with you.

[ironwood]

I have not read all of the posts in this thread, so please forgive me if I am repeating someone.

I was thinking. Let us behold the working laptop computer. How many years of random molecular collisions would it take for such a gadget to come in to existance? I would think that it probably was created for a purpose by an intelligent being, even so, probably a geek-like being.

We are vastly more complicated than a laptop and we can even reproduce. I would think that we were most likely created by an intelligent being. This leads me to belive that the universe was most likely created by an intelligent being.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I was thinking. Let us behold the working laptop computer. How many years of random molecular collisions would it take for such a gadget to come in to existance?

Irrelevant. Laptops are not living things - they do not change. Humanity does change - no one with any knowledge of evolution can say that evolution doesn't happen, it's just a question of whether evolution can happen to the degree of creating a new species.

Single-celled organisms can adapt. Thus, if you wait for a very long time, you get something sentient like humans. Silicone cannot adapt. Thus it won't adapt into something like a laptop.

[lazserus]

Single-celled organisms can adapt. Thus, if you wait for a very long time, you get something sentient like humans. Silicone cannot adapt. Thus it won't adapt into something like a laptop.
Logic intact, but unless you're thinking locally it's scientifically possible for silicone life to exist. I know this really has nothing to do with the point you're making here, but when you go the extra mile you want to be prepared. On our planet silicone life is impossible for many reasons, but what about a planet more suited for the chemical bond? Hydrogen is importan to life as we know it based off of our own planetary conditions, yet in the last five years we've found organisms living in conditions we thought to be impossible for sustaining life. Carry on your point MUST occur in any given environment, but just be careful with your rebuttals. You don't want to hinder future arguments with misinformation. :nana:

This thread is moot, for "proof" is impossible. Proof resides only in faith, it does not cause faith. If it caused faith then it wouldn't be faith. This thread follows the broken logic of the invisible pink elephant rationale.

[DontBeAfraid]

We are vastly more complicated than a laptop and we can even reproduce. I would think that we were most likely created by an intelligent being. This leads me to belive that the universe was most likely created by an intelligent being.Is this the blind watch maker argument again? If your understanding of evolution includes you thinking it is "random" then your understanding is flawed.


...You don't want to hinder future arguments with misinformation.good save, though it should be explicitly stated that silicon life coming about on its own in an environment more suited to inducing chemical reactions in silicon would still be a mechanism guided by chemistry and would still fall under evolution and not a blind watch maker. However, if we humans give it a kick start in the form of encouraging robots to design and build other robots it could still come to awareness someday without the need for a radically different environment..... again note that this still defeats the blind watchmaker argument because this is again carbon manipulating its environment.

[jeffweeder]

Irrelevant. Laptops are not living things - they do not change.

That wasnt the point.
Its a gadget that if you had all the pieces for and threw them into the air it would never land as assembled ....ever.

Not only do the parts have to exist, but they have to be put together, intelligently.

So first you need an idea, then you design all you need for that idea( laptop)
then it has to be assembled. ( just oozes creativity)
This takes more than any intelligent being to do
I dont have the intelligence to this personnally, so how much more did life need a master designer, as its infinitrly more complex---that was the point.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Its a gadget that if you had all the pieces for and threw them into the air it would never land as assembled ....ever.

Yes. Which is totally irrelevant. We weren't a bunch of pieces tossed into the air. We started out as single-celled organisms, then evolved ever so slowly toward the creatures we are today. And we were able to do that because animals change. We know small evolutionary changes - what Creationists call microevolution - do occur. Which means animals have the ability to adapt.

Laptops do not have the ability to adapt. If you leave a laptop alone for a long time, the RAM will not spontaneously change. The only way to change a laptop is to add new equipment, manually, or to reprogram the software, manually. These both require outside interference. Computers don't change.

And that's why you can't compare how computers came into existence, and how animals came into existence. Computers have no internal drive to improve, so they require an outside force to improve them. Animals do have an internal drive to improve: namely, the instinct to survive and survival of the fittest. So they don't necessarily require an outside force to improve them.

Apples, oranges.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and kudos to Laz. I was thinking locally on that one. Should've been a little more broad.

[jeffweeder]

Yes. Which is totally irrelevant. We weren't a bunch of pieces tossed into the air.

well according to you we were not the complete package, but just piece of solder to begin with.


Laptops do not have the ability to adapt

Rubbish, you can change, just by flicking a switch, whether you need 220 volt or 240 volt power.
If i need more memory, or more speed, more space, i am able to get it to adapt.
The point is, it takes an outside influence to recognise what is needed and a hands on approach to enable it to run a particular software.---I can do this in less than 4 billion years, in fact im one step ahead of what ill need in the near future. Ive got twice the memory i need so i dont go to slow, ive only taken up a 1/3rd of my hard drive.......

Whos the smart one , me or God.

Ok , forget the sillycone.

How long will it take me to get something living and active?
5min or 9 months, depending on which way you want to look at it.

[DontBeAfraid]

The point is, it takes an outside influence to recognise what is needed and a hands on approach to enable it to run a particular software.---Yes, that IS the point. Your laptop needs an outside force to decide it needs to change and then to make the change happen. A bacteria needs nobody to tell it to feed. You do see the difference now, yes?

[jeffweeder]

A bacteria needs nobody to tell it to feed. You do see the difference now, yes?

New infomation has to come from somewhere, I guess God is better at it than us, its already there..Just like i foresaw the need for more memory before i needed it, i put it there in hindsight...the genius just doesnt compare though does it. Yes i see the difference.



Mr Mallee Fowl uses a compost heap of leaves to incubate eggs. He displays vital working knowledge of organic heating—produced by the decay in a compost oven. For example, the fowl uses solar heating—uncovering layers to heat in the sun; insulation—covering the heated layers to retain the heat and ventilation—if overheating occurs. He regularly probes the ‘oven’ to test the temperature and keep the eggs within the critical range to hatch. How did he learn all this? If he gets it wrong he may have to explain to his mate, ‘Honey I cooked the kids.’

Where are these creatures getting their knowledge, especially since the creatures don’t need to develop, learn or teach it? Clearly there are ‘software programs’ at work in all living things in addition to just the physical construction of the creature. And these programs are somehow passed on from generation to generation. But the origin of the programs speaks of a genius Programmer



http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5225

[DontBeAfraid]

So you concede that complex behavior is genetic.

How did he learn all this? If he gets it wrong he may have to explain to his mate, ‘Honey I cooked the kids.’lol, still kind of amusing that you would bring up this argument again.

The birds that get it wrong dont pass on their dna. After a period of time it should become obvious that only the birds that can correctly achieve this behavior when it needs to be achieved will be the only birds still alive.

Now let me again tell you why you really do need to move onto a "proof" better than the blind watchmanker(laptop manufacturer) argument:

The odds of something like a laptop coming to gether on its own are near zero as it is in quite a developed state. Life, however, has much much much better odds of becoming increasingly complex and robust because it does it in miniscule steps. It doesnt start out with an end design but develops increasingly complex over a great amount of time simply by reacting with its environment according to the laws of physics.

[equalizer]

This thread is moot, for "proof" is impossible. Proof resides only in faith, it does not cause faith. If it caused faith then it wouldn't be faith. This thread follows the broken logic of the invisible pink elephant rationale.

Laz is right here. The common basis to all religion is faith. Without it then one cannot truly believe in God. Therefore proving God made anything will always be impossible to prove.

[Cartesiantheater]

Laz is right here. The common basis to all religion is faith. Without it then one cannot truly believe in God. Therefore proving God made anything will always be impossible to prove.

Well, what if we DID prove that God exists? I propose that at such a time God would suddenly CEASE to exist due to the following reasoning:


Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[logicpolice]

I have always loved this subject. Please someone correct me if I’m wrong here but the way I have come to understand it.

Once science had gained an understanding of DNA to the point that they could measure the rates at which mutations occur and the probabilities that those changes would be of any benefit to their host they quickly ran into a problem. It seems that once someone did the math they realized that even 4.5 billion years wasn’t going to be enough time to explain the massive amounts of diversity that we can clearly see in the modern world today. It wasn’t even close.

Therefore the next step was to assume that somehow the environment itself had some influence as to what kind of changes would occur in any given organism. Or that the DNA itself had some sort of predetermined remedies for certain environmental stimulus. Either way it resulted in a new train of thought that had to include a whole lot of not so random mutations.

It wasn’t long before some poor shlub scientist first coined the term intelligent design. Of course no sooner than the words had left his mouth, the creationist of the world had their greatest AHA! Moment ever. And they hijacked the term twisted its context out of proportion and have been beating us about the head and neck with it ever since.

The fact of the matter is that science can still not as yet; determine just how it all happens. And for every pound of confidence they have that they will someday have the answers, there is an equal pound of confidence in those that think they already have them.

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[Cartesiantheater]

It seems that once someone did the math they realized that even 4.5 billion years wasn’t going to be enough time to explain the massive amounts of diversity that we can clearly see in the modern world today. It wasn’t even close.


And now is where you provide the PROOF for the above claim...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

well according to you we were not the complete package, but just piece of solder to begin with.

Actually, no, you're wrong. We were the complete package from the beginning. It's just that the package was distinctly different from what we eventually ended up with.


Rubbish, you can change, just by flicking a switch, whether you need 220 volt or 240 volt power.
If i need more memory, or more speed, more space, i am able to get it to adapt.

So, exactly what I said, then?

The laptop isn't able to adapt on its own. It needs an outside source to change it. Life can adapt on its own. So it's a bad comparison.


Whos the smart one , me or God.

Ah, now you assume that just because God may have done something one particular way, that must have been the limit of his abilities. That's not true.

Obviously God could have created everything in the blink of an eye. For all we know, the Earth was created five minutes ago, and all of our memories and possessions were just created by God for us. But, evidence suggests that God didn't do it that way.


New infomation has to come from somewhere

Why?

If a random mutation causes one of an animal's genes to change, the genetic chain it's a part of basically becomes new information. Did it really come from somewhere? You could argue it comes from the mutation, but that doesn't seem to fit the argument you're making.


It seems that once someone did the math they realized that even 4.5 billion years wasn’t going to be enough time to explain the massive amounts of diversity that we can clearly see in the modern world today. It wasn’t even close.

Echoing CT's call for evidence here. How did the scientists in question choose the equations needed to analyze this?

[logicpolice]

The problem that I am alluding to is in the definition of the term Random mutation verses not so random mutation. Most materialists and evolutionists are reluctant to see that there is a difference between the random building of matter and the compiling of information in an ordered fashion. One of the foremost advocates of the theory of evolution, George C. Williams, admits this reality when he says …

Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." …The gene is a package of information, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.
The director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute, Prof. Werner Gitt had this to say.

There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events, which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.
It is precisely this distinction that the intelligent design people have learned to exploit. The following is a link to one of their sites called a mathematical proof for design. It’s all pretty accurate mathematically but you may need to hold your nose at the end of it.
http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathproofcreat.html
I am sure that when it comes to God or no God there is no tangible proof either way. And my personal view is that God is simply a man made metaphor to describe natural laws that are observed but not understood, (and a valid form of developing moral self discipline). But while I am not prepared to acknowledge any kind dogmatic personal deity, I am also not too stubborn to admit that preexisting information that manifest itself in the form of this universe is an almost certainty. So for me the fact that the laptop was assembled by a human is irrelevant, the laptop was created by the universe.
http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality...This seems a misnomer to me, as information is an interpretation of object. That is, changing the object changes the information that can be derived or extracted from it. ID components are simply preying on a persons misunderstanding with this.


I am also not too stubborn to admit that preexisting information that manifest itself in the form of this universe is an almost certainty. So for me the fact that the laptop was assembled by a human is irrelevant, the laptop was created by the universe.Though not relevant to the blind watchmaker argument. Evolution makes no claims as to conditions that preexisted the universe. Only about how certain patterns of matter will(or have) interacted. ID misuses the mathematically study of probablity to compare the odds of two instances which are immeasurably different. Its like raking a handful of sand and dropping one grain at a time. Eventually you will end up with a small unique pile of sand. Now, by evolutionary example, you take another handfull of sand with identical make and measure of grains as the first handful(1 to 1 grain relationship) and drop them in the exact same order only if a grain doesnt land as its counterpart did it gets redropped until it does. Though it will take a long time you WILL end up with two identical piles of sand. (evolution: finished product is the result of many tiny steps). Now ID idiots are saying that starting with your unique sand pile and a handful of sand grains(again 1 to 1 relationship) that there is no way that your second pile will be identical to the first should you drop them all at once without reguard to any sort of selection technique... and they are correct. But that is not at all how the evolutionary sandpile is built into its final product and thus a HORRIBLY dishonest analogy to make.

[logicpolice]

This seems a misnomer to me, as information is an interpretation of object. That is, changing the object changes the information that can be derived or extracted from it. ID components are simply preying on a persons misunderstanding with this
.
I don’t see the misnomer here. Your quote dose not address the issue that an object either has specified or unspecified information in it. You can mix up the contents of a rock and it will still be a rock. But you cannot scramble the contents of an egg and still expect it to be an egg.


Though not relevant to the blind watchmaker argument. Evolution makes no claims as to conditions that preexisted the universe. Only about how certain patterns of matter will(or have) interacted. ID misuses the mathematically study of probablity to compare the odds of two instances which are immeasurably different. Its like raking a handful of sand and dropping one grain at a time. Eventually you will end up with a small unique pile of sand. Now, by evolutionary example, you take another handfull of sand with identical make and measure of grains as the first handful(1 to 1 grain relationship) and drop them in the exact same order only if a grain doesnt land as its counterpart did it gets redropped until it does. Though it will take a long time you WILL end up with two identical piles of sand. (evolution: finished product is the result of many tiny steps). Now ID idiots are saying that starting with your unique sand pile and a handful of sand grains(again 1 to 1 relationship) that there is no way that your second pile will be identical to the first should you drop them all at once without reguard to any sort of selection technique... and they are correct. But that is not at all how the evolutionary sandpile is built into its final product and thus a HORRIBLY dishonest analogy to make.

Horribly dishonest analogy? Again I believe you have just demonstrated their point for them. Randomness cannot be part of the process or it would fail. Having to re-drop the perfect grain of sand over and over until it lands in the perfect place is by any definition following a predetermined pattern.

We have been able to prove microevolution in the lab. But we have not been able to show macroevolution in the lab. Microevolution cannot build a totally new functional organ in one or two steps and nowhere in nature do we see organisms running around with undefined nonfunctional lumps that are poised to become some kind of new organ in the future. The Cambrian explosion of diversity still has us on our heels to explain it.

Again it is not my purposes here to endorse one side or the other. But to simply point out that just as those humans who chase the truth through spiritual means are prone to create a dogma, so too are those humans that analytically pursue the truth through science when it comes to making assumptions about the unknown.

On a personal level I began life with a religious dogma and then abandon it when my analytical mind began to take over. But after hitting the wall on the other side I have begun to return to the center somewhere when I realized that life does have a distinguishable set pattern that it follows.

If you have read any of my post in “my own revelation” thread you will know that I am not prepared to write off the notion that some of these patterns of life are already imbedded within our religious text laying in wait for us to discover them as we scientifically unravel these patterns. And with that I am not prepared to write off the notion that we are not alone in our intelligent discernment of these patterns in the cosmos and that help in understanding them lies just beyond a maturity level we are about to reach.

I guess that you could say I am whole-heartedly convinced that both religion and science are necessary tools for getting at the truth, if for no other reason than they both exist and it is possible to see where they can complement each other

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

I don’t see the misnomer here. Your quote dose not address the issue that an object either has specified or unspecified information in it. You can mix up the contents of a rock and it will still be a rock. But you cannot scramble the contents of an egg and still expect it to be an egg.
that really does depend on which contents of either that we decide to mess up. We are all made of stardust.


Horribly dishonest analogy? Again I believe you have just demonstrated their point for them. Randomness cannot be part of the process or it would fail. Having to re-drop the perfect grain of sand over and over until it lands in the perfect place is by any definition following a predetermined pattern. no, I made my point. That it is NOT random and so doing math of random probabilities on it is horribly dishonest.
now to better explain my analogy: the first sand pile is only symbolic of the math involved and how it is much easier to reach its complexity in small steps(evolution ) rather than in one go.


We have been able to prove microevolution in the lab. But we have not been able to show macroevolution in the lab. Microevolution cannot build a totally new functional organ in one or two steps and nowhere in nature do we see organisms running around with undefined nonfunctional lumps that are poised to become some kind of new organ in the future. we see nonfunctional lumps that used to have purpose. and on the flip side we see organs of various usefulness in all levels of development. so your statement to the contrary was either uninformed or dishonest.

[logicpolice]

As for the rock and the egg I didn’t mean to scramble your brain with that one. Maybe I should rephrase it for you. Mix up the molecules of the rock and you still have a rock, mix up the DNA of the egg and you no longer have an egg. Mix up the molecules of the egg and the mess is even bigger. Get it?

no, I made my point. That it is NOT random and so doing math of random probabilities on it is horribly dishonest.
Well that’s great, seeing as how my two posts on this subject point out that is isn’t RANDOM, and the link that I provided from the ID guy went to great lengths to show mathematically that it wasn’t RANDOM. It’s nice to see we’re all in agreement.
Did you really read the link?:confused:

we see nonfunctional lumps that used to have purpose. and on the flip side we see organs of various usefulness in all levels of development. so your statement to the contrary was either uninformed or dishonest.
Dishonest no, uninformed maybe, I am aware of lumps that “used to have purpose”. But could you give me some examples of “organs of various usefulness in all levels of development”

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

photo receptors come first to mind, so do the many different brain types which run the gamut from ours all the way down to the beginnings of a nervous system which tells plants to lean toward the sun . I'm on my pda now so I can't make this long.

about the dishonesty of ID proponents: no one ever said evolution I random, its said to be by chance and those two things or not the same. so every argument that involves the random chance that some man made object will come together on its own is damn right deceptive and only for the benefit of fooling uninformed people like you. so no I did not waste my time looking at an I'd site which pretends that evolution is something its not in order to argue against it.....

[Cartesiantheater]

Natural selection is not random chance. Natural selection is an alternative explanation to chance (and a much more intellectually useful one than "Godidit."). Natural selection encompasses many very possible events occuring whose end result appears very improbable. It's like you look at a giant sheer face of a cliff and proclaim "no one can climb that- therefore, Godidit!" when on the other side of the mountain there is a very very low inclined path all the way to the top. Every time, for example, a person born tall has a tall child, you have one half of the component of natural selection. There is nothing especially improbable about these sort of things. The other component is for the environment to give a slight advantage to tall people and presto! You've got natural selection.

It is NOT "random chance." The "random" mutations are NOT "strokes of luck." They are everday occurances. There is nothing special about them. This is a very fundemental misunderstanding of evolution (or perhaps it is a deliberate falsehood?). There are, however, relatively improbable events that happen to expidite the process every now and then (like, say a certain insect accidently mates and then lays its eggs on the wrong plant, thus causing its offspring, who imprints the WRONG plant on its "brain," to avoid contact with the rest of its species and to only mate except another insect who randomly has the same problem, landing on the WRONG plant, thus creating a quick speciation; or say a sudden Earthquake that splits a poplation of a species in two- that sort of thing)


Oh, I see no reason to buy George C. Williams idea about "information."

And I'm still waiting for this magical math trick that renders evolution impossible.

And as far as information goes, I dare to say that the information in this universe has always been constant- from the very beginning. Perhaps in some form of "potential information" vs "kinetic information." Of course, I most definately am stepping WAY outside my boundries of knowledge, but why not? Let's start with the beginning of the universe. At that point, the ONLY things that could EVER be possible in the universe are EXACTLY the ONLY things that can EVER be possible. All information is "potential information" at this point. As time progresses, particular realities happen, thus turning some of this "potential information" into "kinetic information," while simultaneously excluding some information from ever existing, etc, ad nauseum. So from the very beginning the possibility of a laptop existing was there, and as time progressed this particular possibility arose to reality, while many others did not, but I see know reason to assume that information was "created out of the sky."

And of course, I don't buy a word I just said or a word your sources have said about information. The only thing I know about it is that it cannot travel faster than light.

But either way I still have not been presented with any legitimate reason to consider evolution impossible, especially from reading literature and studies from the experts in the field.

And as to your "microevolution vs macroevolution in the lab" comment, I'll only ask you this: Suppose you wanted to walk across a gymnasium. Suppose you only took one small step at a time. Can we then reason, because you haven't made it all the way across at time t, or that because you only travel a distance d in t1 amount of time, that you can never get to the end and that getting to the end requires a fundementally different process than taking one small step? I think not. How do we get across the gym? One step at a time.

*The "mountain analogy" is curtesy of Richard Dawkins from "Climbing Mount Improbable."

[logicpolice]

I'm still waiting for this magical math trick that renders evolution impossible.
As I have tried to imply from the beginning, evolution is not only possible it is a fact of life. You know it, I know it, and Dawkins knows it. Now hopefully with that out of the way for good, me you and Dawkins have a small problem.

Microevolution (small gene changes) does exist. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over and over. We also know that macroevolution (large-scale changes over geological time) “must” exist. The problem is that there is still zero evidence that macroevolution can be “reduced” or accounted for by microevolution. That is the missing link in evolutionary theory. But don’t take my word for it, read the following link. It is short and to the point. And if need be follow the leads that it presents.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

To put this another way, you cannot get all the way across the gym in 4.5 billion years by only taking micro steps, you have to take some macro steps along the way. This is what nature has done. It’s just that science cannot as of yet confirm how the macro steps are taken. There is a chinch in the armor, a crack in the door, a bug in the ointment.

And as long as there is, pretending that there isn’t is just another dogma. I’m not indorsing creationism, I’m not indorsing intelligent design. I’m just saying that “kinetic information” has to have a source in “potential information”. And “potential information” by definition has to “preexist”. And finding the source of preexisting information is still anybody’s game. Take it for what it’s whorth.

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

The problem is that there is still zero evidence that macroevolution can be “reduced” or accounted for by microevolution.It seems to me that simple mathematics accounts for it. There is a reason that scientists dont break evolution up into the many forms that creationists do and part of that reason is to keep the conversation honest.


I’m just saying that “kinetic information” has to have a source in “potential information”. And “potential information” by definition has to “preexist”. And finding the source of preexisting information is still anybody’s game. Take it for what it’s whorth.It also seems to me that you want to extend a discussion of evolution to a point beyond the big bang.... No, we have no idea about anything that happened until after the big bang... Ill say again that this is not relevant to the conversaion.

[logicpolice]

It seems to me that simple mathematics accounts for it. There is a reason that scientists dont break evolution up into the many forms that creationists do and part of that reason is to keep the conversation honest.Micro and macroevolution are not “creationists terms”. And claiming that simple mathematics can account for the problems between them is not keeping the conversation honest. And just for the record I’m only applying “information theory” as it might apply to macroevolution.

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[Cartesiantheater]

First, here's a link that may be of interest.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Scroll down to that large table with many hyperlinks. It provides many evidences for macroevolution (although, as noted earlier, the MECHANISM(s) may be more difficult to explain that the EVENT(s) itself)


Now hopefully with that out of the way for good, me you and Dawkins have a small problem.

To this I'll only say the following: lack of imagination does not equal necessity.


Microevolution (small gene changes) does exist. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over and over. We also know that macroevolution (large-scale changes over geological time) “must” exist.

Yes. It is like solving a murder case. We can not witness the event, but there are tell tale signs that we can examine.


The problem is that there is still zero evidence that macroevolution can be “reduced” or accounted for by microevolution.

First let me say this: There is TONNES of evidence for common decent. Further, "microevolution" are observed genetic changes that can be acted upon by natural selection (this has been observed). Since we have so much evidence supporting common decent, it stands to reason that microevolution is infact macroevolution on a smaller scale (but I confess that the above alone is not positive evidence for it). [Just to be clear: There is SO much evidence for common decent that the scientific community at large ridicules those who do not accept it- it is probably the most evidence supported theory in all of biology]

HOWEVER, what if we determine a very certain genetic link between two species? Could we reason that macroevolution did infact happen? The reason I ask is because we HAVE found several between us and our primate cousins (there are loads, but I am only familiar with one- our lone predicted "fused" chormosome [we have a chromosome that appears to be two fused together, as is predicted by theories of common decent- of course, the information is much more complex than this)]. There is absolutely hard evidence for common decent. Therefore, there can be little doubt that the species evolved FROM common ancestors. Do you deny this? Or do you only doubt the MECHANISM?



That is the missing link in evolutionary theory. But don’t take my word for it, read the following link. It is short and to the point. And if need be follow the leads that it presents.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

I call that "missing link" personal incredulity. This link is nothing but "I don't see how it could happen." In addition, this "hopeful monster" argument is a dead horse that keeps coming back. It has been killed many times. I would call it a straw man argument- or in the very least a personal incredulity argument.


Here's what your link said


Many biologists during and after
Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding
could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs,
and body plans.

Of COURSE they have never produced a new species. NO ONE has ever LIVED long enough. But we HAVE produced "speciation."- that is, we HAVE produced situations where the descendents of an initial species split into two different mating groups that will NOT cross breed again and who bare small physical differences.

I mean, obviously we are still probing the darkness of ignorance of evolution. Afterall, we have only recently been able to examine genetics in detail. Patience. Eventually these small issues will be worked out (read: a little ignorance into the exact mechanisms does NOT come even CLOSE to jeopardizing the overall theory- common decent HAPPENED- either that or God(s) are deliberately trying to decieve us by putting MOUNTAINS of evidence for us to examine).





To put this another way, you cannot get all the way across the gym in 4.5 billion years by only taking micro steps, you have to take some macro steps along the way.

These "macrosteps" are already covered in theories such as "punctuated equilibrium." But the "quick" evolution is still on the scale of thousands of years (maybe even hundreds of thousands). Even so, this is still just "personal increduality." Take the evolution of the eye, for example (a complex organ indeed). According to the link below, there has been enough time for the eye to evolve from scratch 1,500 times in succession within any one lineage. And we ONLY need it to happen ONCE per lineage.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml

and

http://darwiniana.org/eyes.htm#Overview



This is what nature has done. It’s just that science cannot as of yet confirm how the macro steps are taken. There is a chinch in the armor, a crack in the door, a bug in the ointment.

Yes, science continues to work out the details, but just because there are several details not fully understood does not mean that macroevolution could not have happened. Indeed, as you said, it MUST have happened, since we KNOW that common decent happened (by "know" I mean that we know this to be true with as much certainty as any idea in all of science- if you want to reject that one, you gotta reject that whole thing).


And as long as there is, pretending that there isn’t is just another dogma.

No one is saying there isn't more research to be done and more things to discover. HOWEVER, to say that macroevolution CAN NOT HAVE HAPPENED is total rubbish. From what the evidence shows, it MUST have happened since the evidence points so strongly to common decent. You are taking some ignorance about some details of the mechanism and the proclaiming that the entire theory is impossible (if you are denying macroevolution, that is exactly what you are doing- if you are only saying that the proposed mechanisms are off, well, that's different and totally understandable).



I’m not indorsing creationism, I’m not indorsing intelligent design. I’m just saying that “kinetic information” has to have a source in “potential information”. And “potential information” by definition has to “preexist”. And finding the source of preexisting information is still anybody’s game. Take it for what it’s whorth.

Why? According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy (and equivilently, matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. That is, if the laws of physics are to be obeyed, matter/energy has ALWAYS existed in some form or another (I know I know, I'm getting too close to the big bang... shouldn't be doing that lest this discussion turns into philosophy). So why can't there be some similar universal principle governing information? Why must there be a "source" other than itself always existing?

I'm going to go ahead and turn this into philosophy for an analgoy. Which is the simpler explanation? That the universe bootstrapped itself into existence (only one thing- and a presumably finite one at that), or that the universe came into existence (1 thing) by the force of will and action of an infinite being (2nd thing- this one presumably NOT finite in any sense)?

Clearly, although a profound mystery in its own right, the first hypothesis is much simpler than the second. Because you STILL have the problem of infinite regression- nay, you have the ULTIMATE infinite regression- the ultimate "boeing 747" design argument- there IS not "747" as complex, infinite, unexplanable and improbably as God himself. "Who made God?" As the old childhood "evil" question goes...

So, what I'm saying is, what if information is simply a quality of the universe, needing no more an explanation for its existence than anything else we find natively in the universe?


But these are two slightly different arguments anyway. But one thing is very certain- common decent happened. Evolution is simply the theory to explain it (and it is a very good one). If there is a better one, by all means, please post some works on it.

[logicpolice]

Excellent post CT. The time and effort you have put into this post assures me that we have finally arrived on the same page. First off NO, I am not saying macroevolution can’t happen. YES I am saying I have a problem with the MECANISAMS for it, as described by materialistic gradualism.

While common decent is a fact, proven by our understanding of DNA and genetic code, and it is a wonderful tool to wag in the face of creationists who think that animals were created separately. It has nothing to offer when trying to explain the mechanisms of macroevolution. Darwin himself understood that the proof for his ideals would be found within the fossil record itself in the form of fluent transitional fossils. And it is precisely the absence of these fossils that has caused the controversy.

Only fossils for simple life forms have been discovered from the time prior to the Cambrian period. Then, suddenly, the fossil record is shown to be teeming with more complex life forms than exist today. It is called the “Cambrian Explosion.” Some call it “biology’s big bang.” What paleontologists find in the Cambrian explosion is not simply the appearance of a few new animals but to date the appearance of at lest 50 completely different body types without prior transitions or predecessors.

The abundance of transitional fossils should be demonstrable within all phyla and species, not merely a few. Certainly there should be many millions of transitional fossils, since it is estimated that over a billion species have existed in Earth’s history. Yet what the fossil record shows, according to paleontologists, is that most species don’t change but rather remain virtually the same for millions of years, the phenomenon called stasis.

It is this very problem that prompted Eldredge and Gould to develop their theory of “punctuated equilibria” (a complete departure from Darwin’s basic premise of gradualism.). And while they claim that a sudden jump from species to species is the only way to explain the missing transitional fossils. I cannot see that the ideal is any better than the "hopeful monster" ideal. I think Denton put it best when he said, “To suggest that possibly millions of transitional species were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible.”

T. S. Kemp, curator of the zoological collections at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, is one of the world’s foremost experts on Cambrian fossils. When discussing the sudden appearances of new species, Kemp declares, “With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, it is not at all what might have been expected. He summarizes the findings from the fossil record by saying “It is now indisputable that stasis occurs in probably a majority of cases of fossil species. Equally it seems beyond dispute that macroevolution usually occurs so rapidly, that the process is below the resolution of the fossil record.”

Some scientists are starting to believe that the chemistry of life has been fine-tuned and that evolution has been preprogrammed into nature’s laws. Dare I say that far from being a random, directionless process, evolution is starting to show deep patterns, and perhaps even purpose in its direction. It is within this context that I believe information (a simple quality of the universe as you put it) is being acted upon by a yet undisclosed mechanism that drives macroevolution.

I understand that science has to break things down to the mundane, to quantify down to a point that is understandable by the human mind. But in doing so I think we have created a dogma that information is ours alone. A taboo that says no mechanism or natural law can exhibit anything resembling premeditation for fear of sinning against our pledge to rationalization. It is the polar opposite of creationism.

But truth is rarely found at the polar fringes of expectation. It is more commonly found somewhere in the middle. It is only because of this step towards the center that I am able to associate purpose with life. It is the reason that I can ponder humanity as a neural network for the planet that will eventually find peace and cohesiveness as a greater good for the extradition of life itself further into the cosmos. For if there is no reason for life then living by reason is a fallacy.

I realize that I may stand-alone in the center at this forum. But I cannot justify in my own mind, totally dismissing either party when both seem to have very profound things to bring to the table. Can I here an amen…anyone? :balance:

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

. For if there is no reason for life then living by reason is a fallacy. Why not just go ahead and come out of the closet on this: You argue for "Intelligent Design". The implecations of this though are that instead of driving further inquiry and study and learning (like real science) ID effectively halts these things by essentially stating exactly what all religious doctrine states: "We dont know, god did it."
ID is from the fringe. It is not the middle ground.

[logicpolice]

I don’t know how to get any farther out of the closet for you. Maybe it all hinges on what I have for breakfast that day. I think maybe I’m an atheist with theist sympathies purposefully arguing the opposite of what anybody says at the time. I can say however that I’m not a fence sitter; I just jump back and forth over the dam thing. If life is easier for you to have distinctly shaped peg holes to put everyone in then go ahead and pick one for me and I’ll except which ever one you like.

http://home.earthlink.net/~hurfordlh1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ava.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

Well, at least the god you defer thought to is the entirety of existance..... and not just some dude.

[SoulReaverKAIN]

God created the universe and Satan is against stupidity!

[eldingo12]

I have to chime in here... I take issue with the "there is always a creator" argument... If indeed there is always a creator, that what or who, (or is it whom?) created the creator.

And if you say God was "just here" or "created from nothing" why is it unreasonable to say that the universe was always here or came from nothing?

[Assassin X]

Went over this before but...

In the bible its says God created everything. I can't there was "nothing" before him. Because nothing is something. There wasn't a "nothing". We think in Human terms, what are feeble little minds can imagine. I know this next part people don't like but just try to think about it before being irrational....

God says when you die that you will instantly know EVERYTHING there is to know. We will be able to understand these very questions. Things that to us now don't make sense and when trying to explain, at least here on earth sound totally impossible to non believers. I mean telling someone "Oh there was God but nothing before him" sounds ridiculous since we humans right away think "Well theres always something before something else!" Its because we can't imagine such a thing. Our brains can't seem to process that idea.

Another thing is some say "The universe began and yadda yadda". So why is my story any less believable then yours?" Your telling me nothing existed before the universe. I am telling you BEFORE the universe there was god and that was it. No difference...well besides the fact there no "nothing" before him. Is it hard to believe because:

A. Its a religion?
B. Science, the limited knowledge when you think about it, says otherwise?
C. Because you can't fathom the idea?

I think its a mix of all three. More so leaning on B. I am pretty sure my God knows more then science. Especially since he created EVERYTHING. Sure he let things move on their own way but he can tell you alot more about ANYTHING in this universe then science can. Wow science can tell you about volcano's. I bot God knows alot more. Fish? God knows more. Brains? Yawn.

Like I also said before something will intelligence would have to create the universe. There would have to be so many amazing astronomical odds involved when the universe "exploded" into life that earth magically happen to be perfect. That life happen to form. That all these speices happen to diffrent. That all these ecosystems on all these planets, that all these systems like gravity and and what not work. That things lie bodies would work and form and etc...right. All this just happen all perfectly? I mean the odds of all this from an explosion has to be a number so big it would bog down every computer in the world just to have it appear on my screen!

OR....you could just say a God with infinite knowledge created everything in 7 days. Which seems to make a hell of alot more sense to me. In games do use explosions to create things? Or are you the creator? In anything who creates things? Explosions or creators? I am NOT saying explosions don't create life or whatever. I am just saying all that stuff that happened would have taken intelligence.

Another thing people say is "Well we can proof the universe exploded into exsistence...yadda yadda, but there is no proof of something like God before". Duh. If know about my religion the simplest thing in the bible is the fact that God is NOT going to leave evidence that he exist. I mean it doesn't say that but our whole belief system is based on "faith". If we had evidence that he existed before the Big Bang then we wouldn't sin like crazy! I'd be like "Eh...well now that I know God REALLY exists I can be bad as I want and don't have to wonder and be faithful!".

Thats why no one will ever be able to prove he exists. It would just kills off alot of peoples belief because we are still humans that can't behave unless we have a reason to. So we are stuck trying to prove things like his existence even though its really impossible.

Lastly like I always say.... what to find out the real truth? If I am right when I die I go to heaven and enjoy it. If I am wrong I see nothing or whatever it is I will see. At least I lived a good life trying to be a moral person.

When you die if your right and there is no god then you'll have a good ending and whatever you believe in will happen. More power to you. But if your wrong you'll spend eternity in hell.

I like my odds. 100% win. Your odds 50%/50%, Pure joy or pure torture.

[DontBeAfraid]

Another thing is some say "The universe began and yadda yadda". So why is my story any less believable then yours?" Your telling me nothing existed before the universe. I am telling you BEFORE the universe there was god and that was it. No difference...well besides the fact there no "nothing" before him. Is it hard to believe because: More accurately it should be said that "before" existence was indeterminant. The difference between placing the line of indeterminance at "before the universe" versus "before a god" is that "before the universe" doesnt pretend to know what cant be determined.


I think its a mix of all three. More so leaning on B. I am pretty sure my God knows more then science. Especially since he created EVERYTHING. Sure he let things move on their own way but he can tell you alot more about ANYTHING in this universe then science can. Wow science can tell you about volcano's. I bot God knows alot more. Fish? God knows more. Brains? Yawn.This sentence shows a great misunderstanding of the purpose of scientific inqueries and assumes the proposition that there is a being that automatically knows everything but cannot be questioned or tested until after a person exits existance.


Like I also said before something will intelligence would have to create the universe.This statement is not proof of anything except your opinion. Nor does this statement provide support for your earlier propostin in any non circular way.


There would have to be so many amazing astronomical odds involved when the universe "exploded" into life that earth magically happen to be perfect.The earth is far from perfect and given the size of the universe the odds of a planet somewhere in it being like earth is actually quite high. Ill grant you that our universal constants seem to need to be what they are for our universe to exist but there are conjectures about reality which can answer this.


OR....you could just say a God with infinite knowledge created everything in 7 days. Which seems to make a hell of alot more sense to me.Just because you deem something too complex for you to understand does not mean that it is. You are non-answering the question, not answering it.


Or are you the creator? In anything who creates things? Explosions or creators?Exploding stars created water.


Another thing people say is "Well we can proof the universe exploded into exsistence...yadda yadda, but there is no proof of something like God before".Actually its said that by all observation and evidence that in the distant past all matter was in the same place.


If know about my religion the simplest thing in the bible is the fact that God is NOT going to leave evidence that he exist.You need to read the kissing hanks ass thread.


be like "Eh...well now that I know God REALLY exists I can be bad as I want and don't have to wonder and be faithful!".huh? Your conclusion does not follow.


Thats why no one will ever be able to prove he exists.Yours is a "god of the gaps."


If I am right when I die I go to heaven and enjoy it. If I am wrong I see nothing or whatever it is I will see.... When you die if your right and there is no god then you'll have a good ending and whatever you believe in will happen. More power to you. But if your wrong you'll spend eternity in hell.
If only your pascals wager couldnt be made for EVERY belief system which cllaims to be the one and only You might have something worth considering. To defer the fualt of your sins to another seems quite immoral to me. And the threats... You really need to look over the kissing hanks ass story.


I like my odds. 100% win. Your odds 50%/50%, Pure joy or pure torture.100%...? What if one of the many many many other religions now and throughout history is/was actually the correct one? When you consider ALL the variables your odds decrease to much less than 1 percent; and in fact equal mine.

[eldingo12]

"In the bible its says God created everything. I can't there was "nothing" before him. Because nothing is something. There wasn't a "nothing". We think in Human terms, what are feeble little minds can imagine. I know this next part people don't like but just try to think about it before being irrational...."

So you're basing your theory on a fairy tale? Why not say that the Wicked Witch of the West created the universe, or rumplestilskin, or Hell I don't care Mr. Mxyzptlk. Think about it, if God was going to write a book, do you think he would have waited so long, do you think that he would have been so cruel to women, and do you think that he would be so self-contradictory? The written word had been around long before the bible (yeah, I didn't capitalize it, so what), was God bored and said "screw it, I'm gonna write a book"... or did he say "Let there be book!" Hmmm... I seem to have wandered off a bit, let me see if I can get back on topic here... <Deep breath> Oh and while we're talking about your all knowing and all loving god, keep in mind that when people pissed him off he had this nasty habit of sending bears to eat them, swallowing them up in the ground and throwing fireballs from the sky at them... So all in all, I have to say, the "God" in the bible is quite simply a jack-ass (I hope that is an acceptable term to use on this site, if not, then I replace it with "poopie head" if you like.)

(Sorry, I have a lot of thoughts going on at once, I realize my post is quite.... Irratic.)

[Nu Kua]

I think the universe did just happen, eventually life began to develop on several planets at various degrees of beginning. At some point the consciousness of some lifeforms developed into the kind of minds that began to see the world around them and wonder, how did this come to be? Where did we come from?
And therefore, God was created, in an attempt to explain things.

[Assassin X]

All I see is answers and people not willing to accept things that are answered simply. My answers are simple. Your answers are complex. And you want MY answers to be more complex. You seem to think I am suppose to know answers from God or something. Like I magically have a connection to him. Sorry thats Jake99s field. ::p:

Seriously though. If you want fancy, scientific answers to beat out the answers science has given you I can't given them because they don't exist. And like I said they can't exist because if they did it would defeat the whole purpose of my religion and Christians would be no diffrent then most of you....sinners. Well, we are all sinners, accept Christians try not to sin as much. BTW thats not meant in a mean way, trying to make the point on WHY I have no "fancy" answer.

Is it stupid you have to die to find out every thing there is to know? Yes and know. From my fragile little human mind it seems silly. But if you think about it.... if you knew EVERYTHING there was, and lets not forget once your dead you can do things that your physical body can't do....Would that even make sense in this world? Forgot the out of body stuff. Someone with that knowledge wouldn't be allowed in this world. Once again going back to faith. God has us learn for a reason. Just as we have to be faithful and just know he exists. There really would be no point of a universe if we knew everything, where everything was and could see it all in our heads and even go their instantly. Not there is even a universe ANYWAYS in heaven.

So once again I am back to I have no answers for impossible questions really. And while there are things that do happen throughout history from God. Science explains them away even if it sounds totally crazy. And if all else fails theres always the cover up. Not of God of course but if anything smaller scale I mean. Do you think leaders of the world want people to know of the existence of God? People wouldn't bother with anything anymore since they know they could do nothing, die and go to a better place (if saved).

Although really I guess thats why once again God leaves no trace (since he is perfect) so that people don't do that. Faith. Its all about faith.

[DontBeAfraid]

All I see is answers and people not willing to accept things that are answered simply. My answers are simple. Your answers are complex. And you want MY answers to be more complex.No, I want your answers to be testable and repeatable under controlled circumstances.... They are neither and therefore worthless.


You seem to think I am suppose to know answers from God or something.That is the claim you are making. You are claiming to have answers from your god.


Like I magically have a connection to him.That is also your claim. That as a theist you have some sort of magical connection to your god.


If you want fancy, scientific answers to beat out the answers science has given you I can't given them because they don't exist.So now you admit that you have no real answers?


And like I said they can't exist because if they did it would defeat the whole purpose of my religion and Christians would be no diffrent then most of you....sinners.How christian of you.


Well, we are all sinners, accept Christians try not to sin as much.Oh really?


BTW thats not meant in a mean way, trying to make the point on WHY I have no "fancy" answer. Does the dictionaries definition of "Fancy" include anything about being testable and repeatable? The answers that we get from observation and testing are not "fancy".


and lets not forget once your dead you can do things that your physical body can't do....In this line you are making a claim to knowledge that you claimed not to have in your first paragraph.


Someone with that knowledge wouldn't be allowed in this world.So you admit that your god is not allowed in this world.


Once again going back to faith. God has us learn for a reason. Just as we have to be faithful and just know he existsYou have a distorted understanding of the meaning of the word "know".


Not there is even a universe ANYWAYS in heaven.Again you are claiming to have knowledge that nobody can test in any reasonable fashion. That is the big difference between your "pretend" knowledge and actual knowledge. Ican say that Im fairly confident thatmy computer AND your computer will not run without a very regulated form of electricity and should you question how I came to this "knowledge" I can lead you through a few very simple and repeatable experiments to help prove to you that I am correct. And should we come to a level of understanding of electricity a bit deeper than that simple observation we can start making predictions about just how much variation in the flow of electricity you computer can operate on..... You see, this knowledge is testable and REAL. Your "knowledge" is designed to simply stop inquery.


So once again I am back to I have no answers for impossible questions really.And what is the title of this thread then?


Science explains them away even if it sounds totally crazy.If yo udont stop misusing the word science Im going t otake my baby gloves off again AssX. Your answer is that you are willfully ignorant.


And if all else fails theres always the cover up.lol.


I mean. Do you think leaders of the world want people to know of the existence of God?Are you talking about people like the pope? Or any of the other many religious "leaders" of the world?


People wouldn't bother with anything anymore since they know they could do nothing, die and go to a better place (if saved).It seems to me that the idea of a god has been used by the leaders of the world throughout most of recorded history to keep sheeple like you doing exactly what your leaders you to, paying tithing and not questioning the authority of your divine king.


Although really I guess thats why once again God leaves no trace (since he is perfect) so that people don't do that. Faith. Its all about faith.Its because you believe in a god of the gaps AssX.

[Assassin X]

No, I want your answers to be testable and repeatable under controlled circumstances.... They are neither and therefore worthless.

Assuming God gave me answers. I am pretty sure no one would understand them or believe them anyways seeing as how you would still have to open up your narrow mind to the fact that he would be basically saying things like like he created the universe.


That is the claim you are making. You are claiming to have answers from your god.

Nope. As always the fun way of twisting things on AO. More so the DBA way. I said god has answers and said we will find out when we die. Unless of course you assumed I am a zombie. Although that might explain my grammar and spelling at times, but then I don't haev the "God" knowledge I should being dead....oh wait I am "undead" technically.



That is also your claim. That as a theist you have some sort of magical connection to your god.

You and twisting things. You must have had a interesting childhood. Truly something evil. I said "You ACT like I have some magical connection" not "I HAVE a magical connection". You want answers I can't give seeing as how I am not you know....dead. And once I am its kinda hard to come back and tell you.

Your whole pathetic attempt to rip apart people on proving god isn't real and what not is sad. Beacuse if you REALLY know the bible well then you know it can't be proven because of the way our religion works so the people can't give answers this way you can go "HAHA so God isn't real!". Wow aren't you smart. Pretty easy to ask something which can't be answered in this world.... or not at this time at least... not until he comes back. But if it makes your obviously beyond inflated Ego feel better then whatever floats your boat. Like most angry people they get off picking easy battles.

Lets argue something else. Hows your love life? Married? Lets see a picture! Is she ugly? Are you? Maybe your kids are! Lets have a field that is even. Not something that is a one way street and only inflates your ego. Most angry, bitter, egomaniacs don't like uneven fields and questions. Obviously I don't care about any of that stuff I asked but its the point and hopefully you got it. And judging by your response to this we will see if you really are just an angry person looking for ego trips or just a simple person having a simple debate beacuse all your questions and response scream someone who has deep issues OR someone who purposely acts like an ass online.

[DontBeAfraid]

Nope. As always the fun way of twisting things on AO. More so the DBA way. I said god has answers and said we will find out when we die.... You want answers I can't give seeing as how I am not you know....dead. And once I am its kinda hard to come back and tell you.
.lol, please google "kissing hanks ass"... You should enjoy it. Anyways the definition of a theist is someone who believes in a god that can be counted on to intervene. If there is intervention then it is testable.


Your whole pathetic attempt to rip apart people on proving god isn't real and what not is sad.My intent has never been to try to prove or disprove statements which by definition can not be proven. Its only ever been to help YOU realize that yo ucant either and that your claims which rely very heavily on a variable that cant ever be determined are worthless.


Beacuse if you REALLY know the bible well then you know it can't be proven because of the way our religion works so the people can't give answers this way you can go "HAHA so God isn't real!".Now that we have established that I am right I want to ask you two more questions:
1. What is the title of this thread?
2. Who was the person who created this thread?


Lets argue something else. Hows your love life? Married? Lets see a picture! Is she ugly? Are you? Maybe your kids are!In order:
lacking. not married. no picture. the ugliest. Second ugliest. They will be.


And judging by your response to this we will see if you really are just an angry person looking for ego trips or just a simple person having a simple debate beacuse all your questions and response scream someone who has deep issues OR someone who purposely acts like an ass online.When you decide that you are no longer happy being willfully ignorant you will come to like me.

[Assassin X]

My intent has never been to try to prove or disprove statements which by definition can not be proven. Its only ever been to help YOU realize that yo ucant either and that your claims which rely very heavily on a variable that cant ever be determined are worthless.

I can't either because unlike you I have faith. I don't live in fear that there might be somethings that just can't be explained (at least not yet). It takes a stronger willed person and more open minded person to believe in something and have faith in something that presents little evidence of its existence. And by little evidence I am referring to things like historical events in the bible that have been recorded OUTSIDE of what the bible said happens that proved they happened, although science always tries to prove those historical events away too.

A close minded person and a person with no real will power just can't stand thinking that the almighty things that we know today can't explain such things as God or events he made happen. Although I find it funny they can imagine stories of giant explosions that sound so crazy (big bang) but yet find something as simple as a God simply creating life puzzling all because it can't be proven. Yet science creates life and they believe that because its on a smaller scale. Weird.

I live my life a happy person (not that its perfect) trying to be as good of a person I can even though I may have some screwy thoughts. And in the end I can look back knowing I didn't waste to much time on useless crap.

Can you say the same? I already pointed out that when you die if your wrong you lose in the afterlife. But no matter what your losing in your life now. You could be doing better things. It seems like, at least online you live with the agenda of trying to prove to religious people they are wrong (as if that would work). This is a battle that has gone on since the beginning. At least if your going to be persistent why not go ranting on christian forums? Go get some real hardcore people to debate with, people that can turn you inside out on the first day!

Once again I go back to the ego thing. Instead you do it here where people support you. Its always easier in a crowd, in numbers. A real debater would take it to the enemy I guess you'd say. I see some really nice debates on religious forums. This is just pathetic. You yap and then don't really care what anyone says anyways so why bother responding really. So if you want to debate with me I'd be happy to go to religious site and see if you could even last.

BTW here are some sites a friend gave me. I didn't look at them all the way because I feel you will dismiss them anyways. Obviously these are all peoples own ideas on trying to prove that God exists. So I am sure you will rip it apart and twist it to your own liking. But I really do want your opinion on each since you demand proof (or something along those lines):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0http://www.newchristian.org.uk/faqgodexists.html
http://www.about-i-am.net/believing.html



BTW on the opposite of this subject..... he did show me this but I read it before:
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00180.html

I like this part and I never really thought about:
"What Is Truth? Our experience is not a measure of truth. Atheism says there is no god. Did science prove that? If so, what is the name of the test for determining that god does not exist? Our experience does not prove or disprove god."

Good point, answer please? Prove to me God does not exist please? Not words, actual evidence.

[DontBeAfraid]

something as simple as a Godlol.... That is a funny way to describe something which, by your account, is infinitely complex. Your entire problem here is that you refuse to learn how things work. There are observable laws of nature which are quite knowable even if a bit complex.


Yet science creates life and they believe that because its on a smaller scale. Weird.You need to learn what the definition of science is. CT put it nicely when he described it as "the best most accurate understanding we have of our existence to date" or some such. That means its ever changing and has no goals other than to understand. That is the open minded path, willingness to be constantly educated. The person keeps his "faith" despite new and better information is not the one with the open mind; just a stubborn mind.


I live my life a happy person (not that its perfect) trying to be as good of a person I can even though I may have some screwy thoughts. And in the end I can look back knowing I didn't waste to much time on useless crap.

Can you say the same?I certainly can. The pursiut of knowledge is quite alright by me.


I already pointed out that when you die if your wrong you lose in the afterlife. But no matter what your losing in your life now.I have made no claims about the afterlife so I cant really be wrong. And how is bothering to educate myself losing? Suppose for a moment that a god did create all of this existance, it seems to me that besides simply passing time that my life might be about solving the mysteries that the universe is full of, or at least trying to. The cause/effect nature of existance suggests that inquery is the purpose.


It seems like, at least online you live with the agenda of trying to prove to religious people they are wrong (as if that would work). This is a battle that has gone on since the beginning. At least if your going to be persistent why not go ranting on christian forums? Go get some real hardcore people to debate with, people that can turn you inside out on the first day! LOL, christian boards, without fail, ban and delete myself and posters like me. Christian boards are not for debate, I know this from a good bit of experience. They have nothing to rebutt anything that opposes their view exept the ban button. The places where you might actually find a decent christian debator are the hardcore atheist forums; of course you have to weed through about a thousand dipshits like you to find the good one. So, turn me inside out? They have yet to find me a historical jesus.


Instead you do it here where people support you.People support me everywhere. But this place has a more rational bunch than most and is much better about not over moderating.


I see some really nice debates on religious forums.For now Im going to call you a liar; however, if you can get me a link to an actual free debate on a christian forum then Ill recant.


This is just pathetic. You yap and then don't really care what anyone says anyways so why bother responding really.OK fuckhead, dont go acusing me of what you have done with almost everysingle post you have made in this thread. My responses have not only been tailored mostly to you but have also included explanations that I believe you can understand or that are down on your level. You have ignored every point I have made choosing instead to repost the same silly shit you posted in the opener again and again despite all of it being thouroghly debunked.


So if you want to debate with me I'd be happy to go to religious site and see if you could even last.lol, when you find a religious site that doesnt silence oppostion Ill indulge you.


BTW here are some sites a friend gave me. I didn't look at them all the way If you cant be bothered to watch them then why should I?


But I really do want your opinion on each since you demand proof (or something along those lines):If you assert that your god intervenes then that is something that you can and must prove. That is the burden of the theist. The deist does not share that burden.


Good point, answer please? Prove to me God does not exist please? Not words, actual evidence.I have never claimed that there are absolutely no gods. The god of the bible does not exist but that is simply because the god defined in the bible is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist. There may be a god and I surely do hope that there is some sort of afterlife. And as I am not the one making any kind of positive claims in this debate one way or the other it is not my burden to prove anything. If you look at the title of this thread: "Proving God made the universe" you might click on it expecting the opening poster : "AssassinX" to be posting some kind of proof that his god made the universe.... But you would only ever assume that if you spoke english.

[Assassin X]

So you can't prove god doesn't exist. Wonderful! :naughtyy:

So you won't look at those sites because I won't give you answers that I don't know. And you say I am being pig headed? A liar? I told why I can't give you answers. Your the one that KNOWS there is not a answer for something that not even science can explain, so if science can't explain it then how do you think I am suppose to? I already gave you the one answer we as Christians know.

And just like I said:

This is just pathetic. You yap and then don't really care what anyone says anyways so why bother responding really.

You won't accept my answer because it either doesn't make sense to you (because your not religous and don't get the faith concept) or because you REALLY just don't care what people say. I even gave you web site where people describe what they have to say. Their best way of "proving" it. And I found it better to prove then I could.

So you can take a quick look or be the typical stubborn person you are just go to prove that you don't want to try to be rational.

[DontBeAfraid]

So you won't look at those sites because I won't give you answers that I don't know.I wont look at them because you havent bothered to look at them. On that note, you never bother to consider anything I post so fair is fair.


A liar?About you haveing real debates on a christian run board. Please read my posts before responding to them. This is why I dont play nice with you, you dont read my posts before responding to them. If you arent going to read them then dont respond.


so if science can't explain it then how do you think I am suppose to? I already gave you the one answer we as Christians knowSo I suppose in the future you arent going to make threads and posts claiming to be able to prove things that you cant really prove then? Again I ask who made this thread and what its title is.


You won't accept my answer because it either doesn't make sense to you (because your not religous and don't get the faith concept) or because you REALLY just don't care what people say.YOU DID NOT POST AN ANSWER! YOU POSTED THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING YOU SAY OR BELIEVE IN! YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THAT THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER! IT IS A DODGE!


I even gave you web site where people describe what they have to say. Their best way of "proving" it. And I found it better to prove then I could. You said yourself that you didnt bother to examine those sites so how can you make any claim as to whats on them? Ill make you a deal, Ill go over those sites and read the same non arguments that have been posted on these forums many times over but YOU have to examine the talkorigins.org website. Sadly some bitch christian group or person has been hacking the site and the site is not all that it once was at the moment.



So you can take a quick look or be the typical stubborn person you are just go to prove that you don't want to try to be rational.AssX, I am about a thousand times more patient with you than I think I should be. But Ill look if you agree to the terms. In order for you to prove you are holding up your end of it though yo uwill have to pass small random pop quizzes about the content of the sites I send you to.

[Assassin X]

I wont look at them because you havent bothered to look at them. On that note, you never bother to consider anything I post so fair is fair.Actually I did look at them after I posted. Since I didn't want them to be something crazy. They are very interesting, especially the first one. I don't know what you want me to consider? Switching opinions? Its a debate. Obviously neither one of us will switch. And I consider what you say but I don't believe it. I don't know what you want me to do? Thats just stupid.

So basically your logic is if someone doesn't switch sides and listen to you then why should listen to them? Thats stupid. Why even have a debate if you won't bother on your end! I don't care if convert or whatever it is you think I want. I have no "outcome" I am looking for. If you admit God is real you can still deny him, theres no rules. There are people that "believe" in God but don't like religion. Just simply take a look at that stuff since that is the "proof" you want...or at least the best people can come up with in a near impossible situation.


About you haveing real debates on a christian run board. Please read my posts before responding to them. This is why I dont play nice with you, you dont read my posts before responding to them. If you arent going to read them then dont respond.Thats why I read them and respond? lol. You make no sense. Unless your arguing the fact that I don't do what most dumb Christians do and throw bible verses and meaningless garble that makes me look stupid. I refuse to answer questions to which there is no answers. Answers which usually really don't answer the question but just lead back to square 1. Most likely with those sites we will end up back where we are.


So I suppose in the future you arent going to make threads and posts claiming to be able to prove things that you cant really prove then? Again I ask who made this thread and what its title is.Ask me to prove I have a cat. That I can do. Ask me to prove God exists, well if you as smart as you claim to be you would know thats impossible at the current time. There are only two ways to do that. Die or wait until he comes back and EVERYONE sees him. There are reasons why he can't be proven but you refuse to admit they are true. Really you are the stubborn one. You have your answers to why there can't be an answer, you just won't accept no.


You said yourself that you didn't bother to examine those sites so how can you make any claim as to whats on them? Ill make you a deal, Ill go over those sites and read the same non arguments that have been posted on these forums many times over but YOU have to examine the talkorigins.org website. Sadly some bitch christian group or person has been hacking the site and the site is not all that it once was at the moment.I said I didn't look at them all the way. As in I got the idea of them. Obviously I wouldn't post them if I at least didn't make sure I agreed with them or they were in a direction that I was getting at.

I check out the FAQ at "talkorigins.org". I read through that end of it. I am not sure what exactly I am suppose to doing. I know alot of it, its mostly just about beating down anything that has to do with anything I think. It doesn't change my mind. I'll check out some of the other links in the FAQ and other stuff on the site. But I don't know what it is you want me to read or what the outcome is. Like I said I don't care about what people believe in. For a christian, or at least people that are christians like me... we don't care if you beojmce christian or not. You can still believe that someone like God created the universe but not be religious. Although if you deicde not to think that then no loss to me. I am just here to try and see if you can say it after seeing my side.

On your side though theres only one point....make people see they are wrong. Theres is no other point. There is no "partially think about it" really. Because in your mind the evidence shows everything I shows is wrong and what not.

Anyways. I'll still read some more there and give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'll see something I haven't been told or read 1,000 times before.

BTW I am sorry if you misunderstand what I am saying or vica versa. As much as I (or you) may get pissed about this subject I do respect the fact you stand strong about the subject. You'd make a great Klingon. :D

[DontBeAfraid]

I don't know what you want me to consider? Switching opinions? Its a debate. Obviously neither one of us will switch.I reconsider my position all the time, science is not an opinion, all the time AssX, if you were to provide me with a solid reason why I should take up your side of the debate above my own I would no choice.


And I consider what you say but I don't believe it. I don't know what you want me to do? Thats just stupid.Then provide a good reason why you dont believe it, one that doesnt involve you just wishing to remain ignorant.


So basically your logic is if someone doesn't switch sides and listen to you then why should listen to them? You are getting better at making the straw men AssX. The truth in this matter though is that I know your argument inside and out, backwords and forwards. I really did take the time to consider your side of this and you have not done the same for me. You say you consider what I post but you have yet to bother educating yourself as to the true purpose and method of scientific inquery. You still use the word to mean something anti religious when in fact the methods of science are indescriminate.


Why even have a debate if you won't bother on your end!Ah but I do bother AssX, I know your side of this debate better than YOU do AssX. You, however, close your eyes and plug your ears when its time to consider my side and the excuse you give for doing this is "its a debate, we wont be changing opinion".


If you admit God is real you can still deny him, theres no rules.Only if I were as dishonest as you. I cannot make a positive statement about something which by definition cannot be positively known to me.


There are people that "believe" in God but don't like religion. Just simply take a look at that stuff since that is the "proof" you want...or at least the best people can come up with in a near impossible situation.You know the deal, we go tit for tat on this.


Thats why I read them and respond? lol. You make no sense.Ok, your responses are appropriate for what I post. You are responding to my posts but not the content of them. I called you a liar about having actual debates on christian boards. Ill recant that if you can give me a link to a christian board that actually allows non believers to debate on it.


Ask me to prove I have a cat. That I can do. Ask me to prove God exists, well if you as smart as you claim to be you would know thats impossible at the current time.Sinse you are having great difficulty putting two and two together Im going state this as blatantly as possible:

YOU CREATED THIS THREAD! THE NAME OF THIS THREAD IS Proving god made the universe! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CAME ON THE SCENE AND SAID THAT YOU COULD PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD. IN THIS THREAD YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY POSTED THE SAME RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER UNTIL RECENTLY WHEN YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT YOU CANT ACTUALLY PROVE ANYTHING!

Simple ya?


There are reasons why he can't be proven but you refuse to admit they are true.What? No I admit that there are reasons that you cant prove it; hell, I have given you many many reasons why you cant prove anything. Your argument here seems to be that these very reasons that you cant prove your god exists are some kind of proof that it exists.... laughably sad AssX.


You have your answers to why there can't be an answer, you just won't accept no. I seperate reasons to not believe something from the reasons to believe something; there really is no middle ground when talking about hte same something. If you have some prrof as to why I should believe your god exists above the million other proclaimed gods then please show it to me. If your answer is "god cant be known or we wouldnt have faith" please explain to me again how you think this is an argument so that I might yet again show you why you are wrong.


I check out the FAQ at "talkorigins.org". I read through that end of it. I am not sure what exactly I am suppose to doing. I know alot of it, its mostly just about beating down anything that has to do with anything I think. It doesn't change my mind. I'll check out some of the other links in the FAQ and other stuff on the site. But I don't know what it is you want me to read or what the outcome is.Keep reading, Ill quiz you in a few days. You can quiz me too if you like.


For a christian, or at least people that are christians like me... we don't care if you beojmce christian or not. You can still believe that someone like God created the universe but not be religious. Although if you deicde not to think that then no loss to me. I am just here to try and see if you can say it after seeing my side. I know your side of the debate AssX. Should you present a new angle to your side I shall consider it and judge it by its own merits. Know though that it must be a two way street here and you must also make a measurable effort to examine my side as well. Also know that threatening me with hell will get you nowhere.


On your side though theres only one point....make people see they are wrong. Theres is no other point. There is no "partially think about it" really. Because in your mind the evidence shows everything I shows is wrong and what not. Actually my point is to get you to start using the critical thinking skills that you beleive your god endowed you with.


BTW I am sorry if you misunderstand what I am saying or vica versa. As much as I (or you) may get pissed about this subject I do respect the fact you stand strong about the subject. You'd make a great Klingon.Thanks sorta, as much as I like star trek it should be noted that I dont beleive standing stubbornly in the face of constructive criticism to be a good thing. THe person who is willing to reconsider when given new insight is the one that will progress.

[Assassin X]

Well originally when I made this topic my intent was to show God created the universe because it was so advanced and so massive and yadda yadda as I mentioned before that only an intelligent being could do it. That was my proof. Maybe not in the terms people are expecting but when you think about hopefully it would make people think. That was all. I didn't want some massive debate because I know science nerds (no offense) go nuts when you just try to use simple logic and not advanced crap that sounds more like sci-fi then anything in the English language.


YOU CREATED THIS THREAD! THE NAME OF THIS THREAD IS Proving god made the universe! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CAME ON THE SCENE AND SAID THAT YOU COULD PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD. IN THIS THREAD YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY POSTED THE SAME RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER UNTIL RECENTLY WHEN YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT YOU CANT ACTUALLY PROVE ANYTHING!

Simple ya?Kind of like my above thing. I don't have the magical answers that I will get when I enter the afterlife OR the physical proof since Christ hasn't returned (although the time is near). But I can still give answers using logic. It doesn't have to be science to be an answer. If you only use science then you will be trapped in a bubble and never know the wonders of things like using your brain for yourself. I don't look at a logic puzzle and go "Hmm...What is the science answer to this logic puzzle?".

Logically to me an explosion makes no sense for the creation of the universe no matter how many books I read, videos I watch...etc. But when I hear,read..etc that entity with infinite knowledge made the universe. Well... that seems like a more plausible scenario to me.

Heck lets say the Big Bang theory wasn't around yet. And the world was trying to figure out how the universe started still. If we seen a movie of some infinitely smart being (not God...lets just pretends its an Alien) creating a universe. Then you see a movie where a giant explosion creates the universe. Which sounds really crazy to you? Mind you Big Bang hasn't been thought up yet. Anyways.... once again that was my topic point when I made this.



Then provide a good reason why you dont believe it, one that doesnt involve you just wishing to remain ignorant.I believe in what I do, simple as that. I just believe regardless of the fact that even though my mind says "That evidence sure makes my whole faith look dumb", I believe that there is higher entity that created everything, I have faith that hes real and that as crazy as it sounds science is wrong on some things. I really can't explain it much more then that. I believe in science on pretty much 99% of everything else.....except for two things.... creation of the universe and creations of man. Well and I ma sure there are some minor things but those are really the big ones.

And whats hard for both sides of the fence is neither knows what its like for the other. So neither can share that so the other can go "Hmm. I see your point." Christians say they are blessed, miracles happen (complicated way), theres lives are diffrent...etc. But yet unless you are one too, it doesn't make sense and you claim its crap because you read about it. But reading isn't doing. Unless your a christian you won't experience. Hence you won't get why I still believe in God over certain aspects of science. Its just....hard to explain.

And where as on your side....ok I guess your side is pretty easy to see even on my side. On my side I do see the evidence and I DO SEE it makes sense BUT I still have faith and things I can't explain.

I hope that answers that question on why you think I "may be" ignorant as you call it.

-edit-
(spelling)

[Cartesiantheater]

:creeps out from the shadows...:

Two things:

One, it should be noted (please don't be insulted, I know this might sound patronizing or condescending) that AssassinX has made some good progress here. This is evidenced by the fact that he now realizes that proving or disproving God lies outside of the abilities of human knowledge at the moment. The deserves some recognition. Kudos to you, sir.

Two, keep in mind that (in an extremely simplified sense) the Big Bang theory is just a description of an observation of matter that seems to indicate that at one time all of the observed matter in the universe originated from the same point or near point. You can have a Big Bang in a universe with God as well as one without God.

Continue...

:sneaks into shadows...:

[Britannia]

I've not read anything but the title, but recently I've been thinking a lot about religion and science, and with all the things that have happened recently, I've gone back to Christianity after being an Agnostic for a while.

God created the universe and all the creatures in it, his creatures evolved by adapting to their surroundings and environment.

That's my view anyway.

[Kevin Lockard]

I don't agree that God is outside of our knowledge. I don't believe in God (I could have swore I selected Atheist instead of Agnostic for my profile) because there have been a vast number of Gods throughout the years. The fact that there have been so many, the fact that a lot of them are seen as nothing more than myths nowadays (Viking Gods, Aztech Gods, Gods Of Rome, Ancient Egyptian Gods, etc., etc.) shows to me that it is a man-made concept. Each religion, including the outdated ones, have had just as much faith and just as little evidence that their own personal god existed. That, along with the very fact that there is no evidence of God, is proof of his nonexistance, the same kind of way we disprove other nonsensical things, like Unicorns, Fairies, Dragons, Goblins, etc.

The Christian God is a mathematical paradox. Just consider the terms of All-Knowing, All-Loving, and All-Powerful, and you'll come to the conclusion that they all three lead to logical paradox. Plus, why would a God, especially the Biblical God, create us through evolution? One of the main things about evolution, I thought, is that it kind of makes God pointless. Why would us being God's perfect creation, the reason that any and everything within the universe exists (BS), create us through evolving from monkeys?

[DontBeAfraid]

One of the main things about evolution, I thought, is that it kind of makes God pointless.Then you misunderstand evolution.


Why would us being God's perfect creation, the reason that any and everything within the universe exists (BS), create us through evolving from monkeysOh come on man. You need to visit talkorigins.org asap.

[Assassin X]

Well technically we "were" perfect. The world was perfect, animals were perfect.....everything was perfect. Then we were tempted by by the devil with that damned apple and of THE WOMAN (always the "gimmes" woman lol) bit the apple and changed everything.

Now we think for ourselves, now the lion EATS the lamb instead of sleeping next to it. Now twisted perverted men rape kids instead of being friendly mentors. Now we shoot each other over a pair if Nike's. All because we believed the devil and bit the apple aka the "forbidden fruit" from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

(insert ten thousand questions here)

[eldingo12]

Well technically we "were" perfect. The world was perfect, animals were perfect.....everything was perfect. Then we were tempted by by the devil with that damned apple and of THE WOMAN (always the "gimmes" woman lol) bit the apple and changed everything.

Now we think for ourselves, now the lion EATS the lamb instead of sleeping next to it. Now twisted perverted men rape kids instead of being friendly mentors. Now we shoot each other over a pair if Nike's. All because we believed the devil and bit the apple aka the "forbidden fruit" from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

(insert ten thousand questions here)

Look, I would understand "God" getting pissed off if eve stole his car or something, but come on, we're talking about an apple (or other fruit-like object)... My personal message to "God" : "DUDE, YOU'RE GOD, YOU CAN MAKE ANOTHER APPLE!!! GROW UP!!!"

okay, I feel better now... Carry on.

[Kevin Lockard]

Then you misunderstand evolution.

Probably because I'm scientific illiterate. However, I would be especially curious as to where in the Bible does it say that God created us through evolution (or the big bang), like a lot of "religious" people believe it does. I would also like someone to explain how Science and Religion are on equal footing when it comes to debating -


Science;
-Evolution
-Fossil Record
-Red Light Shifting
-The Speed Of Light
-M Theory
-The Hubble
-Radioactive Decay
-Microwave Telescope Data
-Carbon Dating

The Bible;
-Adam and Eve created the entire human race without breeding.
-All the good and the bad we see in the world comes from a fruit.
-The dead can rise.
-Angels were created without free will, created with the power to do nothing except love God (we, on the other hand, were given free will to choose to love God, though if we don't, or if we do and don't do a very good job, we burn in hell for all eternity)... which makes me wonder how Lucifer rebelled against God, since he didn't have, you know, free will. Hmmm.
-Talking snakes.
-Flying monkeys.
-Bushes that talk while they burn.


What a debate. A real toughie.

[DontBeAfraid]

I would be especially curious as to where in the Bible does it say that God created us through evolution (or the big bang), like a lot of "religious" people believe it does.It doesnt say anything about it. But evolution says nothing about any god or gods either. It can only be stated that evolution proves that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong, not whether any god or gods which exist beyond any meaning of measure do or do not exist. So to say that evolution proves a god doesnt exist is like saying evolution gravitrons dont exist.... They simply have no relation to each other.


I would also like someone to explain how Science and Religion are on equal footing when it comes to debating -Im not saying that they are. Im saying they arent related. Believe me, Im on the side that wants to keep the two seperate when it comes to teaching people how the universe works.


Science;
-Evolution
-Fossil Record
-Red Light Shifting
-The Speed Of Light
-M Theory
-The Hubble
-Radioactive Decay
-Microwave Telescope Data
-Carbon Dating

The Bible;
-Adam and Eve created the entire human race without breeding.
-All the good and the bad we see in the world comes from a fruit.
-The dead can rise.
-Angels were created without free will, created with the power to do nothing except love God (we, on the other hand, were given free will to choose to love God, though if we don't, or if we do and don't do a very good job, we burn in hell for all eternity)... which makes me wonder how Lucifer rebelled against God, since he didn't have, you know, free will. Hmmm.
-Talking snakes.
-Flying monkeys.
-Bushes that talk while they burn.

What a debate. A real toughie.
It should be clear that most sensible people cant take the bible literally and thus if you want to debate it with someone you really must set a context for the debate. And if yo uwant to debate evolution or other natural sciences, in any context, you MUST EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THEM! You dont get a pass on that simply becuase you are on the same side as me. Lest you do more harm than good.

[Kevin Lockard]

A sensible person doesn't take The Bible literally? What, The Bible is open up to metaphorical interpretation, while at the same time, still being seen as evidence of God? Doesn't that kind of make The Bible meangless? I mean, who gets to decide which parts are factual and which aren't? And who is to say God himself isn't a metaphor?

[Cartesiantheater]

A sensible person doesn't take The Bible literally? What, The Bible is open up to metaphorical interpretation, while at the same time, still being seen as evidence of God? Doesn't that kind of make The Bible meangless? I mean, who gets to decide which parts are factual and which aren't? And who is to say God himself isn't a metaphor?

It could be that the Bible is a secret code passed on from Aliens in the future... or even God, as a means to fight an eternal war against the forces of evil. :dunno:

[Assassin X]

Look, I would understand "God" getting pissed off if eve stole his car or something, but come on, we're talking about an apple (or other fruit-like object)... My personal message to "God" : "DUDE, YOU'RE GOD, YOU CAN MAKE ANOTHER APPLE!!! GROW UP!!!"

Well actually he made everything for them, even trees to eat from. But there was one tree which I mentioned that he told them not to eat from. One tree. I mean when you got thousands why not eat from those? The devil came in and told them (lied) and basically said a bunch of junk and convinced Eve (but not Adam) to take an apple and bite it. And being humans are flawed we lost because of that. Even though God made a "perfect creation" it still had a brain in which he gave limited knowledge which turns it from "perfect" to "duh" which made it easy prey for someone like the devil.


Adam and Eve created the entire human race without breeding.

They breed. I don't know what makes you think they didn't. Once sin was introduced they actually looked at each other and went "DAMN your hot!". Ok probably not exactly but they realized they had new feelings, such as "horniness (that a word?).


Angels were created without free will, created with the power to do nothing except love God (we, on the other hand, were given free will to choose to love God, though if we don't, or if we do and don't do a very good job, we burn in hell for all eternity)... which makes me wonder how Lucifer rebelled against God, since he didn't have, you know, free will. Hmmm.

Heres a little thing I typed from a book I have:
Lucifer was once an honored angel, a cherub. He was perfect in beauty, full of wisdom, and was admitted to the holy mountain of God, where he walked in the midst of the stones of fire. He was in Eden, the garden of God, of which the one on earth was evidently a copy. His ways were perfect, and God gave him the work of "covering," and also anointed him.

But Lucifer was not satisfied. He was envious of God. he became lifted up because of his beauty; he corrupted his wisdom because of his brightness, and decided upon a course which he hoped would make him equal to God. He went so far that he said, "I am a God, I sit in the seat of God."


A short blip here about his actual fall:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fall.html


As for the rest of your things its a God related stuff. When you have infinite power you can do anything. If I had it I would appear in Mr.Bushs HoHos and tell him to end the war or I will explode in his stomach! Or maybe turn myself into a bra in someone like Jesical Albas collection, wait I'll just be her underwear.



Theres no evidence for anything. I have said why and thats as far as I can go. Some people will throw verses at you or weird ass "bible thumping" talk but in the end if its hardcore evidence you seek there is none. Unless I have infinite power myself, am dead or Christ returns NOR anyone can answer anything. But I am happy to try to look at stupid as possible trying in the mean time. At least I don't give up on something I believe in.

[eldingo12]

Well actually he made everything for them, even trees to eat from. But there was one tree which I mentioned that he told them not to eat from. One tree. I mean when you got thousands why not eat from those? The devil came in and told them (lied) and basically said a bunch of junk and convinced Eve (but not Adam) to take an apple and bite it. And being humans are flawed we lost because of that. Even though God made a "perfect creation" it still had a brain in which he gave limited knowledge which turns it from "perfect" to "duh" which made it easy prey for someone like the devil.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Okay, I get it now... "God" is so smart that he can create the entire universe and everything in it, but so colossally stupid that he didn't realize that if you tell a human "Don't eat this, it's yummy and not poison , but still don't eat it" someone will be eat it. He didn't understand basic human nature, and that is extremly ironic, you know, considering he supposedly created human nature. Here's another question, did "God" have the foresight to at least tell them what a lie is? I mean, you say the "Devil" lied to them, did they even know that it was possible to be dishonest? The "Devil" seems to have more power than "God", I mean at least they listened to him. You don't seem to give your god much credit.

[Assassin X]

Well they didn't consider eating it. They didn't even think about the tree until the devil showed up and was tempting them, telling them how good it was and what not.

If you were there and someone said "Hey eat this fruit, its the best ever!" Even though you know not to would you? I mean if someone tells me not to but there is another man saying its good then he must have ate some so why not! Remember they don't know they are the only ones. Or so we assume. No ones knows what they are thinking entirely. They just know what they are told.

As for the rest of your comment. They themselves didn't know of dishonesty. There wasn't sin on the world yet. But the devil, like god is not from this universe. Their from whatever you would want to call heaven and hell. They know of this, more so the devil does now that he has fallen from heaven. So while adam doesn't know what lying is. He still would rather eat other fruit just because God told him to first. But even liked the offer to try from that tree.

As for the age old question of "Why didn't God stop them DUH!". Like everything else there is a reason and "rules" if you want to call them that. He created everything and was not going to interfere with what the devil was doing. If they really were going to listen to the devil and not him (God) then that was up to them. Although they just see a talking snake (yes insert rant here. But remember once they did this he had to plan to bring Jesus into the picture to die on the cross to get pay for the sins and yadda yadda you know the story.

I only know what I read. I wasn't there. And besides that I can't remember alot of things.

[eldingo12]

I only know what I read. I wasn't there. And besides that I can't remember alot of things.

I'm gonna leave that part alone for now, you made it too easy, I just wouldn't feel right about it...

Though, I do stand by my opinion that "God" should have told them what a lie is. Also, maybe they thought that the snake was "God" in disguise...


Random thought, I like existing... I mean, I really like me. Do you like existing? Do you like you? If you do, then don't you kind of have to thank the "Devil" for your existence just as much as you would thank "God". Think about it, if things didn't happen that way, you would not exist.

(For the record, I believe more of what is in Grimm's Faerie Tales than in the bible) {yes, I did leave it lowercase on purpose, a little passive aggressive, but oh well}

Some of you are saying that we would still exist because of your "soul" and all that, but come on, I am exactly who I am because of everything that has happened throughout my existance. I have changed as a person several times (always for the better, I like to think) and so have you, but judging by your fasination with death/assassins and preaching about all of us non-believers burning in hell (rather ironic in my opinion), I'm gonna guess that not all changes are for the best.

Again, I suppose the last bit there was also passive aggressive, but oh well, I'm still a work in progress.

[eldingo12]

Hello? Anyone here? Somebody type something, I hate having the last word on a topic...

[johnb1]

Science and Religion The Great thinking of Mankind must be Parallel and Beyond Think

Logically Thinking and Care full searching The Question is This ---> Is There a God?

I will answer very simple YES there is! HOW and Why is The NEXT question, answer is It is past from Generation to Generation it is not a MYTH it is TRUE, WHY? For us to be save.

There is Evil and War Here in this World comes from Lucifer the Fallen angel Satan and God the Father Almighty the creator of all things is LOVE and Peace.

Now another question will occur and Formulate is there any proof that will see of our EYES?
yes Everywhere. Just Simple and logically and you will understand GOD's AMAZING PLAN but
The Fallen Angel LUCIFER - Satan want bring us to HELL ISIAH 13:14-13 for the JUDGMENT DAY. I know is very HARD for other people to Believe what I say. I say this things For not to PRO or an educated Man I say this humbly for this is what Ive learned in this SHORT little life span of mine Galacians 6:10.

Oops I have to Stop for now, I'm sleepy! got to rest for now


Ask Question Humble and Wisely and GOD will answer you. Mathew 6:33 Mark 4:11 LUKE 6:45

http://esoriano.wordpress.com/about-efs/

(1 Corinthians 14:33) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints (Read Genesis 11:1-8 1 proof that GOD exist)

[eldingo12]

Please slow down and proof read, trying to make sense out of the things that you post is making my brain bleed.

[johnb1]

Please slow down and proof read, trying to make sense out of the things that you post is making my brain bleed.


Yes I'm am like you when I was looking On So Many Proof and Facts My Brain Bleed and Think, the Ending again is coming back this Book Many things will be consider Good or Bad Just Think like this it is all a Balancing Factor sometimes Conflict but that's not it. There is something In our lives that there are more important the things in the future that we did not see yet It is Good to have a super natural feeling and
looking Beyond parallel in Truth but it is Hard to Gain To many Endurance to many Tears to many Sadness BUT It's worth of the PAIN to gain That GOD gives us Wisdom MARK 4:11 Well I'm not a PRO in Explaining i Have only small amount vocabulary to explain in well in grammar for you to Understand what i mean to say but in this simple way all US have a Good Contribution this SITE. My deepest apologies for if I'm wrong in your Eyes

1 Corinthians 14:33 Genesis 11:1-8


http://www.kaanib.net/repos/community/wallpaper/15_1149447903.jpg

[DontBeAfraid]

If you want to explain something complicated in english you must first learn to use complicated english.... Otherwise its impossible for anyone but yourself to have any idea what you are trying to say and thus, all your posts look like spam and irritate people.

[johnb1]

If you want to explain something complicated in english you must first learn to use complicated english.... Otherwise its impossible for anyone but yourself to have any idea what you are trying to say and thus, all your posts look like spam and irritate people.


Thank You for your Comment Qoute

It is complicated and your right Yes I agree with You :yes: This is MY point from the very Start MARK 4:11-12. this is what happening right now to all of us. I said before that there a very VAST database or information that we must know BUT HOW and WHY and what it is and Purpose.

Your a good Teacher and Leader as I see in your Words but your feelings of irritation overcome you.

I'm So sorry for my Mistakes My deepest Apologies I'm a friend Don't worry Peace BRO (^^,)

[DontBeAfraid]

Your a good Teacher and Leader as I see in your Words but your feelings of irritation overcome you.

I'm So sorry for my Mistakes My deepest Apologies I'm a friend Don't worry Peace BRO (^^,)Kissing my ass doesnt change how I feel about you, Im nothing like your god... I dont need you to constantly tell me how great I am in order to judge you fairly. What will make me like you is if you quit spamming gibbereish and startreplying to people in a manner that is relavent to whatever conversation they are having.

[johnb1]

I understand NOW can you give me chance to Straight-up my mistakes.

I am deeply sorry,