Fallacies in Christianity

[mc4]

A couple things.

Please actually read and comprehend my post in its entirety. Please. Especially if you're going to directly quote and reply to it. It's extremely rude to not to, which you clearly have not.

Also, just because scientists aren't absolutely certain about something does not mean you can stick a god there, or turn that into a clear definite reason to believe in god.

Just to let you know, the initial singularity isn't a definite thing. It's just the current hypothesis we have, but it's doubtful it will hold up or actually be reflective of the truth.

And aren't you the one implementing magic with these "magical" other realms that a god can exist in, from which he can "magically" manipulate our universe yet "magically" does not have to abide to its laws. All without a single jot of evidence too. Huh, how about that?

I'll be honest, i didn't read it all, lol i'm getting tired.

you are completely right about your last statement. If your recall what my last statement toward the end was neither what you believe or what I believe can be physically proven. I'm not arguing that. I just believe that the best possibility for how the universe got here based on its amazing complexity, fine tuned laws, order etc as i mentioned already in one of my probably 20 comments by now is more like than by chance, thats my fundamental argument. I trust the bible and except that we as humans won't understand everything but fortunately we can understand alot and so we peer into science for explanations. So the answers that science doesn't give us I look to the bible and God and I am certainly satisfied with them. (i'm sure you'll argue evolution isn't chance, but if you want I'll give you a quote by an evolution believing researcher that says that it is chance) The argument of God vs Evolution as a whole will remain an argument and neither side can physically necessarily be proven beyond a doubt (i'm being a good sport). Bot arguments require a "magical" factor. On the issue of God, where did he come from? how does he dwell beyond our physical universe? On the issue of evolution, how did it all begin? The difference is those on the side of God realize everything can't be explained, on the side of evolution... well honestly i don't know, but i'm sure you do. To everyone Good arguments, it's way late and i'm definitely going to sleep this time.

and one last thing to one of your above statements "Also, just because scientists aren't absolutely certain about something does not mean you can stick a god there, or turn that into a clear definite reason to believe in god."
Well the opposite is true as well. Just because you can't physically prove God doesn't mean you can stick evolution there either. It was last minute lol

 

[LordoftheMorning]

RDK I can understand that you are a devout Atheist, but chill the out. You're making a poor representation those of your beliefs by being so bitter.

No, you cannot just claim that by the mere possibility that a god exists, he therefore is automatically omnipotent. Where is the actual evidence or proof that if there was a god, he is omnipotent? You cannot just claim things to make it convenient for yourself to explain away the improbability of a god existing in the first place.

Okay... so now you're telling me God is not omnipotent....? The whole point of this debate is whether or not there is an omnipotent being watching over us and judging our actions. You can't change the topic of the debate. I'm not arguing for the existence of a God that isn't all-powerful. That is not God. That's not the Christian God and it's not what I'm defending. My/I] god is omnipotent, and that is why it has no relevance to say "Oh, but God's not omnipotent.". This is such a technical argument. It really doesn't refute anything.

There is hardly any evidence that a god created the world at all. In fact, rather, the Earth was formed by purely natural processes, about which you can read a brief summary here

Again you miss the bigger picture. There is nothing in this that suggests that it is mutually exclusive with God's existence. If God created the law's of physics (and don't tell me he didn't just like you told me he's not omnipotent), then why wouldn't he work within his own construct? I really hope you understand this this time around.

Also, you're using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly. An ad hominem would be me attacking or insulting you personally as a way to counter your argument rather than actually trying to take what you said and analyzing and critiquing that.

An example would be, say, me saying "You're stupid, and you use yellow text, therefore your argument is stupid and I don't have to listen to what you say".

These sort of technical nit-picky things is starting to make me think you're out of real arguments. An Ad Hominem fallacy might be something like "This shows how little you really understand about the issue at all."

Anyway, back to the argument, yes you did say that, in a sense, logic is imperfect. There isn't an individualized logic that works for one person, but not another. Logic is impersonal and universal. Either it's logical, or it's not. Saying that "well, your logic doesn't apply to a god, another kind of logic does" clearly demonstrates you don't understand this. However, you can have technically correct logic applied to things, but it turn out to be wrong because you had incorrect information to base it upon. But, with respect to basing logical propositions on scientific theory, considering how often and rigorously tested they are, that won't really be the case. It's when religious people try to use logic to prove the existence of god that proves faulty, as the information they base it upon is either false or malformed.

Um... nope. I still never said logic is imperfect. I said that you, as an imperfect being, are obviously capable of committing fallacies. You have to understand that some things are just incomprehensible to human minds. Logic, in its core, is objective of course, but I never said anything to the contrary. There is one kind of logic; however, God has mastery over logic, whereas we are subject to human error. Therefore God's understanding of events and his actions are not always understandable to humans. Incorrect conclusions can be drawn from correct data. We do it all the time, as you demonstrate here:

I don't have "faith" in evidence because it is what it is. Take gravity, it doesn't take "faith" to believe it's there and will continuously affect objects. To see a rock and see that it contains silicon does not take "faith". These are impartial, objective observations of the world that happens and occurs regardless of how much I want it to happen or not, or how much I want to believe in it or not. The proof is self-evident. If my enthusiasm for the evidence wanes, it does not at all affect how true it still is, unlike religious faith. It is merely a by product of these observations and proofs that it invalidates the claims of the religious that a god exists. That is why I am an atheist. I follow the evidence and proof, which, as a by product result, makes me an atheist. If the evidence was such that it provided proof for a god, I would as ardently argue for his/her/it's existence as hard as I am now arguing against it. That's something you would never hear a religious person say, as they would never consider the other side or the possibility that they are wrong, especially since they try so hard to be as amorphous as possible with their definition of god, as to always leave some slight possibility that he does exist. It amazes me in how uninterested they are in being accurate or truthful about something as rather to always ensuring, even in the slightest terms, they could plausibly be right.

I'm not focussed on the truthfulness of your data. What I am attacking is the conclusion you have drawn from it. Even if you can prove to me that you have X many fossils and that they suggest Y, you cannot tell me with pure logic why it means that God cannot exist. I am attacking the link between your data and your conclusion.

Clearly, it should dawn on you, that to choose any particular religion as "true" is an arbitrary decision, and not at all backed by any sort of evidence, historical fact, or anything that could be construed as objective.

And this brings me to my next point. You want evidence that God exists? Apparently evolution explains how life was created. Now, explain to me how substance was created? Who or what made the elements of the periodic table? Of course manhunter preempted me on this one by saying that it could have always existed. And then there's the fact that every human has some sort of morals (barring mental problems) whereas no other animal does. But then I guess you could tell me that it's society that creates those. And then every civilization has created some sort of God, which you argued by saying it's just a similar lust for power. But don't you think it's a bit odd that there isn't a single exception?

I guess if you're looking for empirical evidence that will prove to you the existence of God, then the only thing you could find would be the testimonials of strong Christians and their experience in life. Of course you won't take my word for it even if I swear to you by everything I love that God exists. I have seen inexplicable things happen while I've been praying at times. Miracles, if you will (I'm going to get flamed for this aren't I?). That's as close to "empirical" as you're going to get.

Usually the only way to witness true proof of God's presence is to have unwavering faith beforehand. There really is no "evidence", sorry, unless you already believe. That's really the whole point, don't you see? God can't just appear in the sky and say, "Yeah, I'm real guys." otherwise Christianity wouldn't require any sort of faith, which is what it's all about. So, yeah. You'll see proof of God only when you don't need it to convince you. Yes, I have evidence, only it's not evidence you would believe or understand. No evidence? Of course not!

But it's ok, because your "evidence" still doesn't mean anything, for the reasons I stated above. All of that can exist in a world governed by God.

Oh and btw. The evil belonged to Hitler and his ilk, not to Christianity. Step back and think about it. Does it make sense for the Nazi's to have their faith in a Religion that commands "Thou shalt not kill"? Not really no. Hitler removed the Bible and instead used his book. The worst lies contain shadows of truth.

I was a little late to respond and now I'm fading fast. Good night, I'll post more later. I still have something to bring to the table besides the old stuff.

 

[mc4]

Reaver-"Clearly, it should dawn on you, that to choose any particular religion as "true" is an arbitrary decision, and not at all backed by any sort of evidence, historical fact, or anything that could be construed as objective."

If you are going to make a claim like that then you should do the research. I presented physics and even studies such as the miller experiment to argue why I believe God exists, I did the research. To make the above statement shows that you didn't. There have been many studies on the scriptures to find out what is historically fact and fiction. Conclusion yes a large majority of the bible is backed by secular study as fact. Many things have proven to be scientifically, geographically, archeology, medically, and the list goes on including historically proven. Research has even been done to find out if many of the rulers in the bible really ruled during the time periods claimed by the bible. Conclusion, a large majority has been proven as fact. The bible has even been used to locate historical places that haven't been found. That was a blind statement that you made.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Mmmm...the Bible is studied in schools as a form of history class too. Just a small point of fact.

I'm going to say this again: I really just don't see how a scientist can attack religion, or how a religionist can critique science. Science is logic; therefore it appeals to the human mind. Religion deals with emotions and things unexplained; therefore it appeals to the heart. I really don't see how those two very separate parts of the body can be used against each other, because they both send very different messages to us all the time. The other thing is that both of those messages can be true.

I personally believe in God, yes. Why? If you asked me, I couldn't give you a straight answer. I guess it's because I've tested out the things that he has asked us to. I've prayed SINCERELY before, and I've gotten an answer to that prayer. But that answer is not in the form of words or the form of a scientific explanation. It is precisely something I cannot explain. That's just an example of what I mean. But I also support science, because things that CAN BE supported by fact should be. However, TESTING out the things taught in religion does sound kind of like science, no? There is a connection here that you guys are kind of dancing around, so close and yet so far.

 

[illinialex24]

Mmmm...the Bible is studied in schools as a form of history class too. Just a small point of fact.

I'm going to say this again: I really just don't see how a scientist can attack religion, or how a religionist can critique science. Science is logic; therefore it appeals to the human mind. Religion deals with emotions and things unexplained; therefore it appeals to the heart. I really don't see how those two very separate parts of the body can be used against each other, because they both send very different messages to us all the time. The other thing is that both of those messages can be true.

I personally believe in God, yes. Why? If you asked me, I couldn't give you a straight answer. I guess it's because I've tested out the things that he has asked us to. I've prayed SINCERELY before, and I've gotten an answer to that prayer. But that answer is not in the form of words or the form of a scientific explanation. It is precisely something I cannot explain. That's just an example of what I mean. But I also support science, because things that CAN BE supported by fact should be. However, TESTING out the things taught in religion does sound kind of like science, no? There is a connection here that you guys are kind of dancing around, so close and yet so far.

The Bible is a very interesting thing because it delves into how the world works, and its logic is rejected in many circumstances by science. However, there are two good reasons why it is a good history lesson. 1 is that ancient Hebrews kept very good historical recordings, insanely good that only a small percentage of ancient Jews could not prove their heritage. These could not be priests even if they claimed to be Levites, because the historical recordings were so good that it was only a small select few who had difficulty out of hundreds of thousands.

Also, mc4, yes it is a theory but as proteins evolve, so do their functions. Saying that without specific direction that nothing could have spontaneously arisen to today's proteins is very foolish, because evolution causes changes that completely changed early and much simpler structures to much more complicated ones. A classic argument for intelligent design is the bacterial flagellum argument, saying that it has 8 parts and all 8 are required for its functions. Take away 1 function and the flagellum doesn't work, so they argue this has to be intelligent design. However, this is not how evolution works. Scientists have actually shown that there was a very similar structure missing 1 part that was used completely differently, in fact, it was used by bacteria to inject toxins into other cells. You might not see the connection between the two, but just adding 1 small part can completely change the function.

The same is true for scales and feathers, you might not think they are almost identical because they serve two very different purposes, 1 for protection and the other for flight and warmth. However, they are almost identical chemically and so it would have taken just a small mutation in an animals genome to change scales into a precursor of modern day feathers, and somehow this was advantageous (likely for warmth) and so a species diverged and this characteristic was spread within them. Although you might see no connection between scales and flying, the feathers had their own advantage independent of flying that allowed them to evolve randomly from scales. Later on, it is likely animals that needed to glide to escape predators would get more rigid arms and have more feathers, eventually causing flight to occur.

 

[BFDD]

Wow I'm gone for a night and suddenly there are three more pages. I don't I have time read it all now but I will still respond to Hive's attacks.

@BFDD- the difference between you and I is... I'm assuming this:
when you see violence in the name of a religion or bigotry in a religion you assume that belief in that religion is bad and that religion should be removed.
when i see violence in the name of a religion or bigotry in a religion I assume that killing people, and acting against ppls existence/free will is bad and this should be removed.
Theism isn't dependent on these actions at all and I will not generalize them as you do...
Yes, there is probably more violence from ppl in religious institutions than out of...
but in the same respect if a certain race had higher numbers of criminals in it then another race I wouldn't blame that race as a whole either... I'll blame the action. Generalizations are crap. The real causes of violence are violent people. period.

You missed my point entirely. Religion is used by bad people to manipulate normally good people. Religion/Theism has a lot of power over people and requires blind faith. It becomes easy for people to use this blind faith by claiming to have spoken to god or whatever and suddenly they have billions of people unwilling to question them. I wouldn't blame a race of people for the actions of some people in that race because people aren't brainwashed into believing in that race. Without religion it becomes a lot harder to manipulate good people into doing bad things. If people were taught to question and look for evidence they would be less likely to believe in something that is false than those who are taught to just believe without question. I completely agree that violence is cause by violent people. My point is that normally non-violent people are turned to violence because of faith and the people manipulating that faith.

You keep saying all generalizations are bad. Then go on to complain about the KKK, that's a generalization. You are assuming all members of the KKK are bad. And they are. Hate is a bad thing it always leads to unhappiness. Not all generalizations are bad. Saying all black people steal is a very bad generalization because there is no reason to believe that, unless you can find some gene linked to the race the causes an instinctive need to steal. I can say all religions that teach blind faith are bad because there is reason to back it up(those reasons listed above). The same reason you generalize all members of the KKK as bad people. Their group only exists to spread hate against innocent people, obviously if anyone joins they believe in that crap.

and according to bfdd apparently if someone kills another person and it feels good to them than that is acceptable as well in the same way...

Really? That is what I think? Not sure where you pulled that crap from. Killing is bad. No question there. I don't need a god or a holy book to tell me that. But depending on the god, some theists are taught some killing is good and there will be rewards for it.

 

[arrowhead]

For the above no micro evolution and macro evolution arent the same. Micro is small changes, macro is large changes.

macroevolution is a DIRECT RESULT of microevolution. there is no clear distinction between the two.

That doesn't even make sense. Where would this "new force" have come from? Physics teaches these 4 forces and none other. The argument is if these forces were even slightly weaker or stronger, not mysterious forces to supplement these differences. And there is no way to even begin to prove that this "new force" would hold things together more. That wouldn't even effect in the least what i said about the differences if gravity was proportionally weaker or stronger in comparison to electromagnitism haha

the point was you're trying to appeal to horrible "if" statements. if terrorists all died before 9/11, 9/11 wouldn't have happened!! ooh look how great of a discussion that brings to the table. yea, none at all. saying "if the variables of the universe were a little different the structure of it would be different too" is just stupid, obvious, and useless.

and well irreducible complexity speaks for itself. If you took away any component in my eye (iris retina lense you name it) it wouldn't work. Although it is rejected by a majority of the scientific community in no way disproves it (people thought einstein was wrong and look where that got him, he was right) but the truth is it can be used on both sides of our argument and I don't really care to get into it because of that. It would be pretty pointless.

there has not been one organ or organ system that has been shown to be irreducibly complex.

Well the opposite is true as well. Just because you can't physically prove God doesn't mean you can stick evolution there either. It was last minute lol

evolution is a fact. we OBSERVE evolution.

If you are going to make a claim like that then you should do the research. I presented physics and even studies such as the miller experiment to argue why I believe God exists, I did the research.

you have done research, but you do not even understand what you've been reading! nor do you understand basic logic. just because people aren't currently able to explain everything to your satisfaction does not mean magic exists

Many things have proven to be scientifically, geographically, archeology, medically, and the list goes on including historically proven.

omg so impressive! a fictional book is not 100% inconsistent with our findings! hey wait, harry potter isn't either. muggles exist, houses exist, candles exist, and cars exist! we should start funding projects to locate these wizards because harry potter must be real!

 

[RDK]

RDK I can understand that you are a devout Atheist, but chill the out. You're making a poor representation those of your beliefs by being so bitter.

What you have to understand is that people like mc4 come in here literally every week espousing the same exact nonsensical arguments over and over again. This whole thing could be avoided if they A) actually read up on the subject before coming in here or B)actually read the links we provide them with. If I get a little bitter sometimes, they kind of deserve it.

Okay... so now you're telling me God is not omnipotent....? The whole point of this debate is whether or not there is an omnipotent being watching over us and judging our actions. You can't change the topic of the debate. I'm not arguing for the existence of a God that isn't all-powerful. That is not God. That's not the Christian God and it's not what I'm defending. My/I] god is omnipotent, and that is why it has no relevance to say "Oh, but God's not omnipotent.". This is such a technical argument. It really doesn't refute anything.

It's beyond hypocritical to demand that we come up with arguments that don't violate natural laws (which they don't, by the way) and then state that your side of the argument can come up with the most ridiculous claims without any consequence because God did it.

Your position is undefendable and you know it.

Again you miss the bigger picture. There is nothing in this that suggests that it is mutually exclusive with God's existence. If God created the law's of physics (and don't tell me he didn't just like you told me he's not omnipotent), then why wouldn't he work within his own construct? I really hope you understand this this time around.

Because the first act of God actually existing and creating the universe doesn't make sense within the construct you're using.

Um... nope. I still never said logic is imperfect. I said that you, as an imperfect being, are obviously capable of committing fallacies. You have to understand that some things are just incomprehensible to human minds. Logic, in its core, is objective of course, but I never said anything to the contrary. There is one kind of logic; however, God has mastery over logic, whereas we are subject to human error. Therefore God's understanding of events and his actions are not always understandable to humans. Incorrect conclusions can be drawn from correct data. We do it all the time, as you demonstrate here:

So basically any conclusion we reach via logic must be wrong while anything you say that supports the existence of God is automatically right?

I'm not focussed on the truthfulness of your data. What I am attacking is the conclusion you have drawn from it. Even if you can prove to me that you have X many fossils and that they suggest Y, you cannot tell me with pure logic why it means that God cannot exist. I am attacking the link between your data and your conclusion.

He's not saying transitional fossils take God out of the picture; transitional fossils have nothing to do with God whatsoever.

He's saying it's illogical to try and shove God into the explanation somehwere when no deity need be involved. It's not science, and it's not right.

And this brings me to my next point. You want evidence that God exists? Apparently evolution explains how life was created.

No, evolution does not explain how life was created. That's abiogenesis.

We give you guys links for a reason.

Now, explain to me how substance was created? Who or what made the elements of the periodic table? Of course manhunter preempted me on this one by saying that it could have always existed. And then there's the fact that every human has some sort of morals (barring mental problems) whereas no other animal does. But then I guess you could tell me that it's society that creates those. And then every civilization has created some sort of God, which you argued by saying it's just a similar lust for power. But don't you think it's a bit odd that there isn't a single exception?

You're so very wrong.

Morals are a product of social engineering. Not everyone in the world has the same morals. If you grow up in a society (let's say America for posterity) that shuns murder and looks down upon ****, then you'll probably adhere to those morals. But let's say you grow up in some dirt-filled cannibal village somewhere in the middle of Africa where murdering and eating everyone in sight and ****** all the women in the tribe gets you a front-row seat in savage heaven.

And it's no surprise that most civilizations had some sort of god as their figurehead. It was just a trait that was strongly selected for in human civilizations (OMG evolution).

I guess if you're looking for empirical evidence that will prove to you the existence of God, then the only thing you could find would be the testimonials of strong Christians and their experience in life. Of course you won't take my word for it even if I swear to you by everything I love that God exists. I have seen inexplicable things happen while I've been praying at times. Miracles, if you will (I'm going to get flamed for this aren't I?). That's as close to "empirical" as you're going to get.

That's not empirical at all. For starters, you're the only one that witnessed it.

And I'd probably liken things like this to sightings of bigfoot or UFO's. Do you honestly believe every kook that gets on the History channel babbling about how some big-headed alien shoved a probe up his ***?

But it's ok, because your "evidence" still doesn't mean anything, for the reasons I stated above. All of that can exist in a world governed by God.

And all of it can exist in a world not governed by God at all; it can exist on its own naturally, no extra effort or uncalled-for faith needed. Odd.

Oh and btw. The evil belonged to Hitler and his ilk, not to Christianity. Step back and think about it. Does it make sense for the Nazi's to have their faith in a Religion that commands "Thou shalt not kill"? Not really no. Hitler removed the Bible and instead used his book. The worst lies contain shadows of truth.

It still doesn't changet the fact that Hitler was a Christian and used his religious ideas to justify wiping out an entire race of people.

 

[illinialex24]

macroevolution is a DIRECT RESULT of microevolution. there is no clear distinction between the two.

the point was you're trying to appeal to horrible "if" statements. if terrorists all died before 9/11, 9/11 wouldn't have happened!! ooh look how great of a discussion that brings to the table. yea, none at all. saying "if the variables of the universe were a little different the structure of it would be different too" is just stupid, obvious, and useless.

there has not been one organ or organ system that has been shown to be irreducibly complex.

evolution is a fact. we OBSERVE evolution.

you have done research, but you do not even understand what you've been reading! nor do you understand basic logic. just because people aren't currently able to explain everything to your satisfaction does not mean magic exists

omg so impressive! a fictional book is not 100% inconsistent with our findings! hey wait, harry potter isn't either. muggles exist, houses exist, candles exist, and cars exist! we should start funding projects to locate these wizards because harry potter must be real!

Chill out a bit, we don't want to antagonize him seriously. And the argument of being irreducibly complex is a very bad one. Very bad. Mainly because it fails every time its been tried.

It still doesn't changet the fact that Hitler was a Christian and used his religious ideas to justify wiping out an entire race of people.

And same with the fact that slave traders used the Bible to justify their position, and there is much talk about slaves in the Bible and rules with how to deal with them. And they are fairly scary, that slaves of your own people can only be held for 7 years and any others can be pretty much indefinitely used.

 

[mc4]

Also, mc4, yes it is a theory but as proteins evolve, so do their functions. Saying that without specific direction that nothing could have spontaneously arisen to today's proteins is very foolish, because evolution causes changes that completely changed early and much simpler structures to much more complicated ones. A classic argument for intelligent design is the bacterial flagellum argument, saying that it has 8 parts and all 8 are required for its functions. Take away 1 function and the flagellum doesn't work, so they argue this has to be intelligent design. However, this is not how evolution works. Scientists have actually shown that there was a very similar structure missing 1 part that was used completely differently, in fact, it was used by bacteria to inject toxins into other cells. You might not see the connection between the two, but just adding 1 small part can completely change the function.
.

Ok so my argument when i presented the miller experiment is that yes amino acids where proven to be capable of being synthesized with an assumed reducing atmosphere (which doesn't make much sense as a possibility) however Proteins and RNA have never been synthesized in lab experiments. There is no proof of a jump from amino acids to either proteins or rna in an attempt to replicate this initial spark of life. The miller experiment proved that under these very very specific and not likely conditions that amino acids couldn't become rna or proteins.

macroevolution is a DIRECT RESULT of microevolution. there is no clear distinction between the two.


the point was you're trying to appeal to horrible "if" statements. if terrorists all died before 9/11, 9/11 wouldn't have happened!! ooh look how great of a discussion that brings to the table. yea, none at all. saying "if the variables of the universe were a little different the structure of it would be different too" is just stupid, obvious, and useless.


omg so impressive! a fictional book is not 100% inconsistent with our findings! hey wait, harry potter isn't either. muggles exist, houses exist, candles exist, and cars exist! we should start funding projects to locate these wizards because harry potter must be real!

No we don't observe evolution (macro) we have never seen a species change from one to another. We can prove the small changes but we can't prove the large changes. Yes the theory of evolution says that over time micro becomes macro, but this hasn't been proven. Never have we observed micro evolution change anything into a completely new species.

and to arrow heads all my "if statements" are based on physics unless you can prove what i said about gravity and the other forces true. Second evolution is nothing but a bunch of it statements. Do you realize that at lot of your own arguments work against you?

Second your statement about harry potter is just stupid. You can't make that comparison because It more than obviously is a fiction created by someone to intrigue peoples minds with a world that is not physically possible. Obviously Harry potter can't be proven historically, scientifically (clearly i speak of magic and not harry potter falling -9.81 m/s2 off of a roof) geographically (unless the place where hogwarts is really exists... get real man) or proven by archeology. Your argument about houses existing and candles doesn't come close to the fact that the bible is proved by the different sciences and has even been used to locate historical places. That was very weak and a horrible comparison.

 

[arrowhead]

Ok so my argument when i presented the miller experiment is that yes amino acids where proven to be capable of being synthesized with an assumed reducing atmosphere (which doesn't make much sense as a possibility) however Proteins and RNA have never been synthesized in lab experiments. There is no proof of a jump from amino acids to either proteins or rna.

and there's nothing disproving it. it's still a valid theory. AND it makes way less assumptions than "god didit"

No we don't observe evolution (macro) we have never seen a species change from one to another. We can prove the small changes but we can't prove the large changes. Yes the theory of evolution says that over time micro becomes macro, but this hasn't been proven. Never have we observed micro evolution change anything into a completely new species.

large changes are shown through fossils. and evolution is not a theory. natural selection is.

Second your statement about harry potter is just stupid. You can't make that comparison because It more than obviously is a fiction created by someone to intrigue peoples minds with a world that is not physically possible. Obviously Harry potter can't be proven historically, scientifically (clearly i speak of magic and not harry potter falling -9.81 m/s2 off of a roof) geographically (unless the place where hogwarts is really exists... get real man) or proven by archeology. Your argument about houses existing and candles doesn't come close to the fact that the bible is proved by the different sciences and has even been used to locate historical places. That was very weak and a horrible comparison.

you missed the ENTIRE point. just because a book has some facts in it does not mean the things that are not demonstrated to be facts is true. each point must be supported individually. say a science textbook says mitochondria creates it own light, but everything else in the textbook is corect. does that mean mitochondria creates light? obviously, no.

 

[illinialex24]

Ok so my argument when i presented the miller experiment is that yes amino acids where proven to be capable of being synthesized with an assumed reducing atmosphere (which doesn't make much sense as a possibility) however Proteins and RNA have never been synthesized in lab experiments. There is no proof of a jump from amino acids to either proteins or rna in an attempt to replicate this initial spark of life. The miller experiment proved that under these very very specific and not likely conditions that amino acids couldn't become rna or proteins.



No we don't observe evolution (macro) we have never seen a species change from one to another. We can prove the small changes but we can't prove the large changes. Yes the theory of evolution says that over time micro becomes macro, but this hasn't been proven. Never have we observed micro evolution change anything into a completely new species.

and to arrow heads all my "if statements" are based on physics unless you can prove what i said about gravity and the other forces true. Second evolution is nothing but a bunch of it statements. Do you realize that at lot of your own arguments work against you?

Second your statement about harry potter is just stupid. You can't make that comparison because It more than obviously is a fiction created by someone to intrigue peoples minds with a world that is not physically possible. Obviously Harry potter can't be proven historically, scientifically (clearly i speak of magic and not harry potter falling -9.81 m/s2 off of a roof) geographically (unless the place where hogwarts is really exists... get real man) or proven by archeology. Your argument about houses existing and candles doesn't come close to the fact that the bible is proved by the different sciences and has even been used to locate historical places. That was very weak and a horrible comparison.

You really have no idea what you are saying. There are MILLIONS of pieces of evidence of species diverging, from the fossil record, bacterial evolution, artificial selection, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biochemistry, and biogeography.

And guess what. Monomers of nucleotides and amino acids have been shown to produce polymers in the lab. Hot clay attracts them and allows them to react with each other, so guess what. You're like 0 for 50.

 

[Zero Beat]

This video explains why neither a jug of milk nor god can lose when we look at prayer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=related

This is a pretty good explanation as to why.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

^ I saw this coming a mile away. That is why I cannot emphasize enough that you only see evidence of God is if you already believe. Quite honestly, this is just stating the obvious. Someone who has their faith shaken by that hasn't thought out why they believe in God anyway.

And really? Scientific studies? And then it tries to preempt the argument that "God must remain hidden", although it fails. Do you really think God would expose himself via some stupid experiment if he doesn't appear in the sky and say "HAI GUYZ!" every time someone asks him to? Of course not! You seem to have forgotten that omnipotence and omniscience make him able to make a conscious decision about every event that couldn't be more well though out.

Chew on this:
God cannot be criticized for causing/allowing death. Being an omniscient God, he understands what death is. We do not understand the nature of death. All we know is that their body stops working and they never say or do anything again. God knows death. He knows what death implies for every person he distributes it to. He knows what it means for you to die. To some people death might be a good thing. It might be saving the person's soul by ending their earthly life earlier. If God struck me down with a lightning bolt right now, I would bear him no ill will. I would understand that he knows why it is best that I died right then. So all these people talking about "I don't believe in God for all the **** he lets happen" are wrong. I'd say more and make this a better argument if I had time, but now I have to go somewhere. No doubt you'll have some sort of arguments when I get back.

Guys pick a position please. Is it "God don exits" or "God don hav uber h4x"? You can't tell me he doesn't exist and then when you can't refute my logic say that he's just not omnipotent. You are changing the topic of the debate by saying this. It's stupid, and I guess I can't prove that there is a semi-potent God, just an omnipotent one. So are you happy? You've proven that a not-omniscient God does not exist, now all you have to do is actually argue what we're supposed to be arguing (that an omniscient God exists).

You're so very wrong.

Morals are a product of social engineering. Not everyone in the world has the same morals. If you grow up in a society (let's say America for posterity) that shuns murder and looks down upon ****, then you'll probably adhere to those morals. But let's say you grow up in some dirt-filled cannibal village somewhere in the middle of Africa where murdering and eating everyone in sight and ****** all the women in the tribe gets you a front-row seat in savage heaven.

And it's no surprise that most civilizations had some sort of god as their figurehead. It was just a trait that was strongly selected for in human civilizations (OMG evolution).

Note that I acknowledged this argument when I presented my point in the first place. I'll have response to your other stuff when I have time. I gtg to a party.

 

[arrowhead]

Chew on this:
God cannot be criticized for causing/allowing death.[/B] Being an omniscient God, he understands what death is. We do not understand the nature of death. All we know is that their body stops working and they never say or do anything again. God knows death. He knows what death implies for every person he distributes it to. He knows what it means for you to die. To some people death might be a good thing. It might be saving the person's soul by ending their earthly life earlier. If God struck me down with a lightning bolt right now, I would bear him no ill will. I would understand that he knows why it is best that I died right then. So all these people talking about "I don't believe in God for all the **** he lets happen" are wrong. I'd say more and make this a better argument if I had time, but now I have to go somewhere. No doubt you'll have some sort of arguments when I get back.

so you think the holocaust was good? you think everything that happens is good, and you have no anger for anything in your life?

Guys pick a position please. Is it "God don exits" or "God don hav uber h4x"? You can't tell me he doesn't exist and then when you can't refute my logic say that he's just not omnipotent. You are changing the topic of the debate by saying this. It's stupid, and I guess I can't prove that there is a semi-potent God, just an omnipotent one. So are you happy? You've proven that a not-omniscient God does not exist, now all you have to do is actually argue what we're supposed to be arguing (that an omniscient God exists).

our "position" is a non-position. we say god may exist, but so far there is nothing to suggest it. but before you can "prove" the existence of an omnipotent god, you need to rigorously define "omnipotent" first.

 

[Pr0phetic]

I completely support LotM standpoint, we merely understand what happens, even in science. Most theories aren't explained, so don't look to some scientist to tell you what's what.

However, believe what you want.

 

[arrowhead]

you're assuming everything happens for a special reason in the first place. circular logic

However, believe what you want.

go tell that to the victims of faith healing. oh wait, you can't cause they're dead

 

[illinialex24]

^ I saw this coming a mile away. That is why I cannot emphasize enough that you only see evidence of God is if you already believe. Quite honestly, this is just stating the obvious. Someone who has their faith shaken by that hasn't thought out why they believe in God anyway.

And really? Scientific studies? And then it tries to preempt the argument that "God must remain hidden", although it fails. Do you really think God would expose himself via some stupid experiment if he doesn't appear in the sky and say "HAI GUYZ!" every time someone asks him to? Of course not! You seem to have forgotten that omnipotence and omniscience make him able to make a conscious decision about every event that couldn't be more well though out.

Chew on this:
God cannot be criticized for causing/allowing death. Being an omniscient God, he understands what death is. We do not understand the nature of death. All we know is that their body stops working and they never say or do anything again. God knows death. He knows what death implies for every person he distributes it to. He knows what it means for you to die. To some people death might be a good thing. It might be saving the person's soul by ending their earthly life earlier. If God struck me down with a lightning bolt right now, I would bear him no ill will. I would understand that he knows why it is best that I died right then. So all these people talking about "I don't believe in God for all the **** he lets happen" are wrong. I'd say more and make this a better argument if I had time, but now I have to go somewhere. No doubt you'll have some sort of arguments when I get back.

Guys pick a position please. Is it "God don exits" or "God don hav uber h4x"? You can't tell me he doesn't exist and then when you can't refute my logic say that he's just not omnipotent. You are changing the topic of the debate by saying this. It's stupid, and I guess I can't prove that there is a semi-potent God, just an omnipotent one. So are you happy? You've proven that a not-omniscient God does not exist, now all you have to do is actually argue what we're supposed to be arguing (that an omniscient God exists).

Note that I acknowledged this argument when I presented my point in the first place. I'll have response to your other stuff when I have time. I gtg to a party.

No but I can get pissed at him for torture. The bible specifically shows he let and even supported the torture of Job, and yet people follow him....

 

[Mewter]

Ok so my argument when i presented the miller experiment is that yes amino acids where proven to be capable of being synthesized with an assumed reducing atmosphere (which doesn't make much sense as a possibility) however Proteins and RNA have never been synthesized in lab experiments. There is no proof of a jump from amino acids to either proteins or rna in an attempt to replicate this initial spark of life. The miller experiment proved that under these very very specific and not likely conditions that amino acids couldn't become rna or proteins.

No we don't observe evolution (macro) we have never seen a species change from one to another. We can prove the small changes but we can't prove the large changes. Yes the theory of evolution says that over time micro becomes macro, but this hasn't been proven. Never have we observed micro evolution change anything into a completely new species.

and to arrow heads all my "if statements" are based on physics unless you can prove what i said about gravity and the other forces true. Second evolution is nothing but a bunch of it statements. Do you realize that at lot of your own arguments work against you?

We know micro evolution is true right? And you magically find fossils sequenced in time order with small changes from fossil to fossil, right? You also find branches in the sequencing suggesting mutations can occur(and we know they do). The only logical explanation is to derive from this that things change over time, and so macro evolution must be true, right? No, fossil record must be wrong, because I don't like it? Rejecting evidence because it goes against your beliefs is not really useful if you want to gather information...

Secondly, what you said about physics.
When the big bang occurred, physics was completely chaotic. The way the universe is now is merely a byproduct of how the universe organized itself over time. What you said "We wouldn't be here if it weren't for the universe being like it is" is very obvious, useless, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Isn't it funny how things seem to get more beautiful and self-sustaining over time? Reminds me of something else, too....

Second your statement about harry potter is just stupid. You can't make that comparison because It more than obviously is a fiction created by someone to intrigue peoples minds with a world that is not physically possible. Obviously Harry potter can't be proven historically, scientifically (clearly i speak of magic and not harry potter falling -9.81 m/s2 off of a roof) geographically (unless the place where hogwarts is really exists... get real man) or proven by archeology. Your argument about houses existing and candles doesn't come close to the fact that the bible is proved by the different sciences and has even been used to locate historical places. That was very weak and a horrible comparison.

This can actually be used in reverse. Also, which sciences prove the bible? I would love to hear it.
The Bible may have been written with real places in mind, but that doesn't make the entire book true. As I said before, God does a darn good job contradicting his creations/ nature.
He's also great at making paradoxes too, I hear. That's why nothing on earth seems to fit many of the miracles mentioned in the bible.

The miller experiment proved that under these very very specific and not likely conditions that amino acids couldn't become rna or proteins.

Where did you get this from?
It never proved any thing of the sort. It only showed that amino acids were probably present during the time of the early earth.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1313684
Also, meteorites that have fallen have had amino acids on them. The ingredients for a pre-life substance may have been attracted to (a certain type of) clay which brought the necessary components close together with its charge and let them polymerize. After a while, RNA may be formed, and self replicate. At least, this is my understanding of it. If there are any expert biologists in the room, let me know if there is something wrong with this.

and one last thing to one of your above statements "Also, just because scientists aren't absolutely certain about something does not mean you can stick a god there, or turn that into a clear definite reason to believe in god."
Well the opposite is true as well. Just because you can't physically prove God doesn't mean you can stick evolution there either. It was last minute lol

The opposite is not true. Evolution is a fact, and God has not been proven. You can not stick God into evolution because evolution is totally independent of a god. It's just a lot of naturally selected mutations only dependent on organisms and the environment. There's no need to stick a god there, even since abiogenesis works. Evolution is not last minute, either. No one was trying to disprove God. It just happened by examining nature.
Your argument that evolution can not replace God is rather twisted. You're saying that if something has no evidence to support it, the one with more( or even any, at that) evidence is not allowed to replace it? That's rather strange...

 

[Amide]

That is why I cannot emphasize enough that you only see evidence of God is if you already believe.

So only people brainwashed by Christianity can see the "evidence" of it? Crap! I guess I need to convert before I can become knowledgeable on the subject.

......

Or you could just be saying, "atheists can't disagree with Christianity, because only Christians can see the proof of it. So I win. Ha!"

 

[Smooth Criminal]

No but I can get pissed at him for torture. The bible specifically shows he let and even supported the torture of Job, and yet people follow him....

Yeah.

Let's not forget the "God is merciful" part, shall we? I also recall a particular story where Jerusalem came under fire from a "pagan" nation that deified some vile, non-God god. The people of Jerusalem petitioned to God for assistance to drive out these invaders. Rather than come down from the annals of Heaven and use his great powers to stop the conflict peacefully, he ruthlessly butchered the enemy encampment as they slept. He sent angels to slit their throats, caused the Earth to heave and buckle and swallow whole regiments.

Oh, and let's not forget the Flood.

"Oh, ****," God says to himself, tone indicative of an epic facepalm. "I've given these ingrates too much leeway. Looks like I'm gonna have to wash the slate clean."

God then calls down to Earth. "Abraham, you're my favorite. I like you. I want you to build a big boat so you and the other people I like don't drown in this big-*** rain I have planned. To Hell with everybody else; they're sinners and they deserved to be washed away."

Of course we all know what happens after the fact: They wash up on a rock and, aside from a few people that decided they didn't want to be on the boat for whatever reason, come out intact. With rainbows and sunshine, God says that he would never do something like this again to his children. Then **** like the above "happens" and contradicts benevolence.

Tell me that's "merciful."

Smooth Criminal

 

[RDK]

Let's not forget about God ordering the Israelites to **** and slaughter entire small kindgoms (Jericho, Caanan, etc.), including the women and children. I can't recall the exact verse, but in one escapade it says somewhere in the same book that Moses tells the Israelite army to essentially keep the virgin girls for themselves.

Edit: Ah yes, here it is.

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy."

They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

 

[illinialex24]

And for the merciful thing. Lets not forget the story of where God was vengeful and set out to burn a city. And some man (I forgot his name) kept on begging him to say that if there were a certain number, which went from 200 all the way to 50 in the city supporting him, the city would be spared. But even though 11 were innocent, he killed them all.

 

[Pr0phetic]

So only people brainwashed by Christianity can see the "evidence" of it? Crap! I guess I need to convert before I can become knowledgeable on the subject.

......

Or you could just be saying, "atheists can't disagree with Christianity, because only Christians can see the proof of it. So I win. Ha!"

No you took him out of context, even though he could've stated it better.

If you believe in it, you have reasons to believe in it due to your mentality. People who do not believe will not see the samethings, due to different experiences, but have reasons to doubt.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

So only people brainwashed by Christianity can see the "evidence" of it? Crap! I guess I need to convert before I can become knowledgeable on the subject.

......

Or you could just be saying, "atheists can't disagree with Christianity, because only Christians can see the proof of it. So I win. Ha!"

So now you're stereotyping me by telling me I've been "brainwashed". Good job. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you. If you don't have faith in God, my advice to you would be to pray for it. You have nothing to lose if it turns out there is no God, and you might just save your soul. Essentially.... Yeah. I do win. This what I've been trying to say this whole thread. You cannot disprove the existence of God. It's not humanly possible.

I like how you guys restart your rant about all the horrible deaths God has caused as soon I as I tell you why it's okay. I'll try to make this more concise. God understands what death is. We do not. Therefore, God has superior authority to distribute death. God causing someone to die may be an act of mercy in itself, because we don't know what could be in that person's future. God killing people isn't unmerciful. God ****ing (err... condemning) people to hell would be unmerciful. But, of course, he gave us Jesus in order to save us from eternal suffering. Merciful no? If God struck me down with a lightning bolt and I went to heaven immediately, why would that be an unmerciful or savage act? Perhaps my death would mean a kick in the rear to someone who knew me, or perhaps it saved me from trouble I would encounter in the future and I was at the peak of my spirituality. God knows exactly the result of the death of any person, and therefore he can allow the death of whoever he pleases. Come on, guys. This is the argument I just got done refuting. Why start ranting about it right after?

 

[Zero Beat]

Chew on this:
God cannot be criticized for causing/allowing death.

Says who?

he understands what death is

According to who?

We do not understand the nature of death.

Prove it. Again, according to who?

All we know is that their body stops working and they never say or do anything again.

Here, I would ask "Have you ever taken a serious Biology course?" If so, did you cover your eyes and ears while the lectures carried on? Or did that rejecting mechanism implanted to you by Christianity do the job for you? You should have never said that, all that says to me is "I am misinformed and brainwashed. I reject factual information and let faith on a nonexistent, man-made idea figure lead my life."

He knows what death implies for every person he distributes it to. He knows what it means for you to die. To some people death might be a good thing. It might be saving the person's soul by ending their earthly life earlier. If God struck me down with a lightning bolt right now, I would bear him no ill will. I would understand that he knows why it is best that I died right then.

All I see there is preaching and acceptance through faith and faith alone.

Here is a good quote from "The Atheism of Astronomy."

Those who believe in a "supreme intelligence" in the sky overlook an important principle of physiological knowledge. "Three centuries before the beginning of the Christian era," writes the distinguished anatomist, G Elliot Smith, ["The Evolution of the Brain" in 'Creation by Evolution,' p. 323.] "some of the wise men of Greece already recognized in the brain the real organ of mind; yet it was reserved for modern times to confirm the accuracy of this early knowledge and to extend it." Accordingly, it is well here to recall the materialistic basis of mind. Thinking is as much a function of structure and organization as breathing or walking. As functions cannot exist apart from their organs, it is the height of absurdity to imagine a function like thinking existing by itself or wandering about the heavens without a material substratum. A "pure spirit" hovering over matter is pure nonsense. Thought is "immaterial" only as respiration and digestion are immaterial -- we cannot see, weigh, or handle functions apart from their organs -- but thinking is as material as matter itself when we consider it mechanically, that is to say, as a form of vibration and sensation in the nerve fibers of the brain and of the nervous system. Matter thinks quite as well as it walks, and talks, and dresses for the opera; and without matter thinking is impossible. "As we understand it at present," writes George W. Bartelmetz, ["Human Structure and Development" in The Nature of the World and of Man, p. 468-469.] "a word or idea comes into consciousness as a result of innumerable cortical reverberations back and forth from one cell or group of cells to another." Thought is matter in motion. A cosmic intelligent being would have to be made of matter."

It is easy to be led down an ignorant path when you don't understand how things work, and then are simplified while sounding nice and orderly through the primitive thinking that is Christianity, or any of these religions.

While I reject the existence of God due to 0 evidence to support it, I do agree that it is a NECESSITY for people to be introduced to these kind of beliefs because not everyone can handle a Godless world. A world where they are ultimately dependent on themselves.

Funny thing is, no matter what path you take in college(Astrophysicist, Astronomer, Physicist, Theologist, Historian) you come to the conclusion that all religions are man-made ideas to give life meaning and keep things in check. Of course, there's a much "prettier" version of this answer, but that would just be playing with words. I'd rather be blunt about it.

Sorry for any suggestive sentences that made you feel as if you were being attacked. <<Whether this makes it better or not.

Answer my questions, and try not to tell people to "chew on" assertions that purely derive from faith and faith alone.

"WE live in a material universe, in which we ourselves, as products of the stars, are matter "through and through." That we are matter that can think is no more remarkable than there is so much matter, outside ourselves, which never thinks at all. That matter which thinks has simply reached a certain biological stage. As C. Judson Herrick observes, [The Thinking Machine, p. 250,] "Mental processes are biological functions of the body in general and of the brain in particular in just the same sense that circulation of the blood is a function of the heart or breathing is a function of the lungs. The evidence for this is biological evidence." Man has no claim for exclusion from the world of matter. He is as much matter as the world of stars."

 

[Amide]

@ Lordofthemorning

In all seriousness, I am sorry if I offended you. I was trying to prove a point, and you seem very smart.

I would pray, but it's been scientifically proven that praying does not have any benefits. And I have tried being Christian, in fact, I'll show you a post I made in the Debate Hall months ago that proves it if you want.

On the fact that you can't disprove god, I have an analogy I am sure you have heard before. But hey, it illustrates my point perfectly. There's an invisible pink elephant magically dancing over my head. No I can't prove it, but since I have faith in it, I just know it's there. If you still aren't on my side, just believe. If all else fails, well then you just didn't try hard enough. Wait- How dare you try to disprove this magic with science! It's there, you just need to believe!! (Sound familiar?)

...On a less obnoxious note, sure, you can't disprove god. But you can't prove him either. In fact, most evidence on the start of life contradicts religion.

 

[Pr0phetic]

@ Lordofthemorning

In all seriousness, I am sorry if I offended you. I was trying to prove a point, and you seem very smart.

I would pray, but it's been scientifically proven that praying does not have any benefits. And I have tried being Christian, in fact, I'll show you a post I made in the Debate Hall months ago that proves it if you want.

On the fact that you can't disprove god, I have an analogy I am sure you have heard before. But hey, it illustrates my point perfectly. There's an invisible pink elephant magically dancing over my head. No I can't prove it, but since I have faith in it, I just know it's there. If you still aren't on my side, just believe. If all else fails, well then you just didn't try hard enough. Wait- How dare you try to disprove this magic with science! It's there, you just need to believe!! (Sound familiar?)

I see what your getting at here, but you talking about in a sense that is completely out there. Its not like people came crackpot with this Christianity, there's people who have inscribed this in books, walls, and other sources. Science can prove that wrong, but you can't disprove 2000+ years, after searching al lthis time aswell. I'm sorry if your praying didn't work out with you, but this worked miracles for me.

...On a less obnoxious note, sure, you can't disprove god. But you can't prove him either. In fact, most evidence on the start of life contradicts religion.

And most religion contradicts the start of life. Inversly proportional correct?
This is why its so hard and we'll debate about this forever until we all die, and then it'll remain our secret, to be debated forever. Maybe God hasn't worked in your lives, but 300+ million have, so on with our debate.

 

[Mewter]

That's because anything you do is God's plan, and there is always a reason for him to do so. we have imperfect logic, and the only way to debate is to tell them to come to your side and then you'll see it all fits in perfectly. There have been hundreds of millions of successful miracles performed everywhere, and your eyes are too blind too see it. I don't see how you could be so foolish as to throw your life away when God plainly exists! Everything as it is is the result of only the Christian God. The "miracles" other religions lay claim to are just flukes, but ours are real. You're getting all your experiments wrong, too. Stop twisting logic, atheists. Naturalism is self refuting because our consciousness definitely exists out of time and space, which is why we can't see it, and we know that it exists. Naturalism insists that you touch things with your five senses and, again, consciousness exists, but you can't touch or smell it... and anyways... there's nothing to lose if you do convert to Christianity...

That's what I'm drawing from your arguments. Why is it necessary to involve yourself in a religion in order to see things more "clearly". I could just convert to Hinduism right now and I would absolutely without a doubt know that your god is wrong because mine are right and have helped my people time and time again. This argument is highly flawed, but is probably one of the most overused of arguments. There's no way to lose, no matter what you convert to.

 

[manhunter098]

So now you're stereotyping me by telling me I've been "brainwashed". Good job. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you. If you don't have faith in God, my advice to you would be to pray for it. You have nothing to lose if it turns out there is no God, and you might just save your soul. Essentially.... Yeah. I do win. This what I've been trying to say this whole thread. You cannot disprove the existence of God. It's not humanly possible.

I like how you guys restart your rant about all the horrible deaths God has caused as soon I as I tell you why it's okay. I'll try to make this more concise. God understands what death is. We do not. Therefore, God has superior authority to distribute death. God causing someone to die may be an act of mercy in itself, because we don't know what could be in that person's future. God killing people isn't unmerciful. God ****ing (err... condemning) people to hell would be unmerciful. But, of course, he gave us Jesus in order to save us from eternal suffering. Merciful no? If God struck me down with a lightning bolt and I went to heaven immediately, why would that be an unmerciful or savage act? Perhaps my death would mean a kick in the rear to someone who knew me, or perhaps it saved me from trouble I would encounter in the future and I was at the peak of my spirituality. God knows exactly the result of the death of any person, and therefore he can allow the death of whoever he pleases. Come on, guys. This is the argument I just got done refuting. Why start ranting about it right after?

Unless of course god is actually tricking you so he can send you to hell and he can only send you to hell if you follow his teachings. Its a bit far fetched but its completely within the realm of logical possibility. Its for that reason that it doesnt make sense to follow Christian ideals if you dont actually believe them, since you might not actually be guaranteeing that you go the heaven.

 

[RDK]

The whole "we don't know the mind of God" argument is complete and utter bull****.

So I guess then you can throw all reasoning and rationality out the window, because you yourself are using some type of reasoning, however idiotic, to rationalize the unbelievable and downright dicky things God does.

If God is unquestionable, as you assume he is, then just outright say so instead of pussyfooting around the matter. Admit to what you're actually trying to say.

 

[illinialex24]

So now you're stereotyping me by telling me I've been "brainwashed". Good job. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you. If you don't have faith in God, my advice to you would be to pray for it. You have nothing to lose if it turns out there is no God, and you might just save your soul. Essentially.... Yeah. I do win. This what I've been trying to say this whole thread. You cannot disprove the existence of God. It's not humanly possible.

I like how you guys restart your rant about all the horrible deaths God has caused as soon I as I tell you why it's okay. I'll try to make this more concise. God understands what death is. We do not. Therefore, God has superior authority to distribute death. God causing someone to die may be an act of mercy in itself, because we don't know what could be in that person's future. God killing people isn't unmerciful. God ****ing (err... condemning) people to hell would be unmerciful. But, of course, he gave us Jesus in order to save us from eternal suffering. Merciful no? If God struck me down with a lightning bolt and I went to heaven immediately, why would that be an unmerciful or savage act? Perhaps my death would mean a kick in the rear to someone who knew me, or perhaps it saved me from trouble I would encounter in the future and I was at the peak of my spirituality. God knows exactly the result of the death of any person, and therefore he can allow the death of whoever he pleases. Come on, guys. This is the argument I just got done refuting. Why start ranting about it right after?

I'm not arguing about causing death, I'm arguing TORTURE. Do you read? Torturing someone is completely ridiculous. So either we should not respect God or the Bible is a bunch of lies. And science supports the 2nd reason.

 

[mc4]

So Briefly to MUTER um my point was amino acids alone aren't the cause of life, yes you are correct that these could have come from space and landed on earth. My point is in that situation even with a special atmosphere protein and RNA could not be created which are necessary for life, I got it from reading a book about the miller experiment btw.

second ILLINIA fossils are subject to interpretation. They decay over time and do not hold the same quality, shape and structure they once did. A bunch of fossils that a biased group interpreted (they are look for a specific conclusion and already have an objective in mind, they will make whatever they want to make of it) is not proof of macro evolution by any means. Guess what humans are imperfect and can be wrong about scientific assumptions especially the ones subject to interpretation. How many years did people believe the earth was flat until the telescope was invented? and natural selection is a theory but evolution is proven? First of all i would think it the opposite, because natural selection is obviously true, darwins finches proved that. However his finches didn't prove that Macro evolution was true because the finches remained finches, they just adapted to their environment. People that live up north can tolerate the cold better because their bodies have become over time more accustomed to it, seems like natural selection to me but it doesn't seem like evolution seeing as how we are all still human. Evolution seems to rely on Natural selection as part of its theory, if part of its theory is still theory, than how can it be taught as fact.

And no i'm not zero for fifty even if most of what i said was wrong you can't get around the physics which i explained already but you can have a crack at it lol. What argument could you possibly get around the fact that even slight changes in the strength of forces changing the entire composition of our universe? Slight changes would affect every single element that is essential for life, some effect hydrogen, some effect the heavier elements etc. Are you telling be that we don't need hydrogen to exist? Or that we don't need the heavier elements to exist? That if the sun didn't shine as bright as it does or if it had half it's life span organisms could survive? With no elements we have no life, thats what my argument about the specific physics proved. The slightest change in any of the 4 fundamental forces drastically change everything. And there is your "fine tuning" and not "chance" or "probability" as a cuter way of saying it.

And for the merciful thing. Lets not forget the story of where God was vengeful and set out to burn a city. And some man (I forgot his name) kept on begging him to say that if there were a certain number, which went from 200 all the way to 50 in the city supporting him, the city would be spared. But even though 11 were innocent, he killed them all.

It's nice to see that you've actually read some of it but I don't believe there were 11 innocent. The only innocent ones were Lot, his wife and two daughters and they escaped. (not Lot's wife because she disobeyed a command after escaping) but that's on a different subject as far as how the universe got here even tho this thread is actually about "Fallacies in christianity" It's unfortunate that there are so many different branches of christianity, clearly all of them aren't true since they teach different things. So if you are viewing christianity in general (with common teachings such as hellfire etc) you are bound to run into fallacies since all groups don't believe the same things and have different interpretations. You are comparing thousands of branches to one unchanging book...

 

[arrowhead]

mc4, are you just really really stupid? it has been shown again and again that NONE of your points make any sense. why are you here if you don't even bother trying to learn?

also, just because something is currently unexplainable doesn't mean it's magic


Lordofthemorning - do you not have any anger for anything? and do you think anything that happens is good, such as the holocaust? according to you, everything that happens is god's will

 

[illinialex24]

So Briefly to MUTER um my point was amino acids alone aren't the cause of life, yes you are correct that these could have come from space and landed on earth. My point is in that situation even with a special atmosphere protein and RNA could not be created which are necessary for life, I got it from reading a book about the miller experiment btw.

second ILLINIA fossils are subject to interpretation. They decay over time and do not hold the same quality, shape and structure they once did. A bunch of fossils that a biased group interpreted (they are look for a specific conclusion and already have an objective in mind, they will make whatever they want to make of it) is not proof of macro evolution by any means. Guess what humans are imperfect and can be wrong about scientific assumptions especially the ones subject to interpretation. How many years did people believe the earth was flat until the telescope was invented? and natural selection is a theory but evolution is proven? First of all i would think it the opposite, because natural selection is obviously true, darwins finches proved that. However his finches didn't prove that Macro evolution was true because the finches remained finches, they just adapted to their environment. People that live up north can tolerate the cold better because their bodies have become over time more accustomed to it, seems like natural selection to me but it doesn't seem like evolution seeing as how we are all still human. Evolution seems to rely on Natural selection as part of its theory, if part of its theory is still theory, than how can it be taught as fact.

And no i'm not zero for fifty even if most of what i said was wrong you can't get around the physics which i explained already but you can have a crack at it lol. What argument could you possibly get around the fact that even slight changes in the strength of forces changing the entire composition of our universe? Slight changes would affect every single element that is essential for life, some effect hydrogen, some effect the heavier elements etc. Are you telling be that we don't need hydrogen to exist? Or that we don't need the heavier elements to exist? That if the sun didn't shine as bright as it does or if it had half it's life span organisms could survive? With no elements we have no life, thats what my argument about the specific physics proved. The slightest change in any of the 4 fundamental forces drastically change everything. And there is your "fine tuning" and not "chance" or "probability" as a cuter way of saying it.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking. You are reading Christian propaganda and are buying into it. If you see only bacteria a few billion years ago with mats of them fossilized and see dinosaurs from a few million years ago to 65 million years ago that are verified by dating techniques, then guess what. Macroevolution exists.

mc4, are you just really really stupid? it has been shown again and again that NONE of your points make any sense. why are you here if you don't even bother trying to learn?

also, just because something is currently unexplainable doesn't mean it's magic


Lordofthemorning - do you not have any anger for anything? and do you think anything that happens is good, such as the holocaust? according to you, everything that happens is god's will

Exactly. You argue based on faith and insanely bad science.

 

[mc4]

You guys say i'm not trying to learn when I debate in this thread? Do you realize that I could say the same thing, that you yourselves are not trying to learn? I have stated just as much scientific study as either of you has. Obviously after we walk away from this we are going to believe what we are going to believe despite what the others say, i excepted that before my first post in this thread. For this same reason I could call evolution "propaganda" and say that your sources of evolutionary teachings are trying to "brainwash" you. Everything that i said has come from books. Alot of your argument is saying that what i said about physics is wrong and that I don't know what i'm talking about, but can you prove it wrong? All that stuff about the 4 forces, miller experiment, finetuning, elements, all from books by people who actually research physics such as Stephen Hawking amongst others. So no my physics isn't wrong unless you think theirs is. I'll admit i've called some of your statements stupid but i don't think i've called any of you stupid no need to insult i've even complemented everyone on there arguments so please if not the same, show at least some respect huh. Oh yeah and something about being verified by dating techniques? um so is this dating technique you are speaking of carbon dating? Has carbon dating been proved to be 100 percent correct? hmmm just curious.

 

[arrowhead]

if you really wanted to learn, you would address all parts of all of my posts and explain to me why you think i am wrong instead of ignoring it like you've been doing.

 

[illinialex24]

You guys say i'm not trying to learn when I debate in this thread? Do you realize that I could say the same thing, that you yourselves are not trying to learn? I have stated just as much scientific study as either of you has. Obviously after we walk away from this we are going to believe what we are going to believe despite what the others say, i excepted that before my first post in this thread. For this same reason I could call evolution "propaganda" and say that your sources of evolutionary teachings are trying to "brainwash" you. Everything that i said has come from books. Alot of your argument is saying that what i said about physics is wrong and that I don't know what i'm talking about, but can you prove it wrong? All that stuff about the 4 forces, miller experiment, finetuning, elements, all from books by people who actually research physics such as Stephen Hawking amongst others. So no my physics isn't wrong unless you think theirs is. I'll admit i've called some of your statements stupid but i don't think i've called any of you stupid no need to insult i've even complemented everyone on there arguments so please if not the same, show at least some respect huh. Oh yeah and something about being verified by dating techniques? um so is this dating technique you are speaking of carbon dating? Has carbon dating been proved to be 100 percent correct? hmmm just curious.

Except our argument is based off of proper scientific findings and real science, not faith and insanely bad science. You should read better science, because you honestly know almost nothing.

 

[mc4]

if you really wanted to learn, you would address all parts of all of my posts and explain to me why you think i am wrong instead of ignoring it like you've been doing.

I didn't need to address those parts because the physics presented already addressed them, you talked about fossils and amino acids and bacteria but the physics proved with slight changes they wouldn't exist so why would i try to address everything. once again i could say the same, you've been saying I don't know anything but what i've read is scientific study (physics) just as what you've you read is scientific study. Yet no one has proved what i've said about physics wrong. All you do is say it's wrong, but I suggest you have a talk with those who have already come to the conclusions... I'm not making the stuff up. If you were really trying to learn you would do the same. To be honest all I care to learn is how people who believe in evolution think and nothing more. If you think i meant trying to learn as in considering evolution as a possibility then no i'm not trying to learn because based on what i've learned and continue to learn about evolution I don't and will never agree with it.

Except our argument is based off of proper scientific findings and real science, not faith and insanely bad science. You should read better science, because you honestly know almost nothing.

And my findings are based off "proper science" also. Physics vs Evolution, which of the two sciences is more reliable? My argument is a majority of numbers yours are "what ifs". If this would have happened this that could have happened. Why do you think the evolutionary process is referred to as chance and probability? If the outcome of life were to occur then you need a bunch of "what ifs" to lead to that outcome because it is based off probability.

 

[Zero Beat]

I like how the guy with the yellow text completely ignored melol.

Notice how you could replace "God" with any object(or imaginary being you may come up with) and use the same blind arguments to defend it and it would be the same thing. Same circular fail.

Anyway, still waiting for yellow text to reply to me. This debate won't be going on for much longer.(when I say this, I'm talking about the coming 50-100 years) People are starting to notice. It is irrelevant as to how "late" they're noticing, but that they notice nonetheless.