How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[blue_dragon]

I now ask an important question. What is to be gained by disproving God? It honestly wouldn't help religious violence, as anyone warped enough to kill over religion believes enough that nothing can dissuade them. In fact, it will most likely cause more religious strife, as most non-believers will start prosecuting believers. This will likely happen in the vein of Red Darkstar's op, except that it will now be enforced by those with a sense of self-righteousness. Besides, anyone who believes in God will most likely follow religion over scientific findings.

That's my view on it all. Yes I am a Christian. I would like to add that if you address my post, it would be appreciated if you answer my question. Thank you.

 

[Falco&Victory]

That's why scientists are making microorganisms out of organic compounds all the time in the lab.

Oh wait...

I never said they were >_>

Lemme ask, if there is NO possibility that life evolved on its own, they y are there traces microorganisms on other planets?(mars)

And the whole 'scientists can't make life' thing isn't valid, because even if they know EXACTLY how an organism is made they don't have the tools to recreate it themselves. AKA Cloning

 

[Quicksand]

I never said they were >_>

Lemme ask, if there is NO possibility that life evolved on its own, they y are there traces microorganisms on other planets?(mars)

I don't know - you tell me why the "bacterial fossils" found on ALH84001 (the Mars meteorite) are highly disputed among scientists as to whether they are what they claim to be. Also, why have we not found any life, anywhere, on any planet?

And the whole 'scientists can't make life' thing isn't valid, because even if they know EXACTLY how an organism is made they don't have the tools to recreate it themselves. AKA Cloning

If scientists, with all the knowledge we have accumulated so far, can't even make homochirality come out of whatever forced combination under preset circumstances. How can we expect blind, limited, natural causes to create life?

So now I ask an important question. What is to be gained by disproving God? It honestly wouldn't help religious violence, as anyone warped enough to kill over religion believes enough that nothing can dissuade them. In fact, it will most likely cause more religious strife, as most non-believers will start prosecuting believers. This will likely happen in the vein of Red Darkstar's op, except that it will now be enforced by those with a sense of self-righteousness. Besides, anyone who believes in God will most likely follow religion over scientific findings.

I think the problem lies in thinking that people have which inexplicably relates God to religion. It simply is not the case. Under God's Kingdom there will be no religions, religion only causes division and is something tolerated under this imperfect system.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I find certain ironys in this whole situation.

We are all accustomed to the core belief of theories, "A theory can never be proved, only disproved." Most Christians, except for the nuts, do not try to prove God. Most Christians understand that God is impossible to prove with the evidence they have. Mainly because they realize that if God is proven as existing, they cannot believe in Him.

Now for the irony:
Most theorists try to disprove God by giving theories as to how the universe/earth/organisms were developed. How exactly can these disprove God?

You can't prove a negative, any scientist can tell you that. Scientists do not try to disprove god, they assume he doesn't exist for experimental purposes because otherwise experimentation would be impossible. Anybody would just be able to point and shout "GODIDIT," which gets us nowhere.

And then you have the others who try to disprove God with evidence. This cannot work as it enacts a certain Catch-22. Any evidence of God's unexistance would in fact prove his existance.

The universe a we know it is evidence against the christian god. It does a pretty good job of showing that the earth is older than six thousand years, that man evolved and wasn't created and that stories like the tower of babel and noah's flood never occurred. All of this is not a catch-22, it is not proof of your god's existence.

So now I ask an important question. What is to be gained by disproving God? It honestly wouldn't help religious violence, as anyone warped enough to kill over religion believes enough that nothing can dissuade them. In fact, it will most likely cause more religious strife, as most non-believers will start prosecuting believers. This will likely happen in the vein of Red Darkstar's op, except that it will now be enforced by those with a sense of self-righteousness. Besides, anyone who believes in God will most likely follow religion over scientific findings.

That's my view on it all. Yes I am a Christian. I would like to add that if you address my post, it would be appreciated if you answer my question. Thank you.

You cannot prove a negative. It is physically impossible to disprove gods. But what we can do is show that your particular god doesn't exist. The greatest loss of human life has been at the hands of the religious. If people embraced logic and reason over archaic worship, it would bring people together. Since the renaissance, people of different race, religions and creeds have come together for the common purpose of finding the truth. As opposed to killing each other for believing the 'wrong' bed time story.

 

[Quicksand]

You can't prove a negative, any scientist can tell you that. Scientists do not try to disprove god, they assume he doesn't exist for experimental purposes because otherwise experimentation would be impossible. Anybody would just be able to point and shout "GODIDIT," which gets us nowhere.

Yet, we may end up finding out that the only way things are able to get to their present state is through premeditative intelligence. If anything, theories getting made and then getting disproven just points more toward the fact that GODIDIT.

The universe a we know it is evidence against the christian god. It does a pretty good job of showing that the earth is older than six thousand years, that man evolved and wasn't created and that stories like the tower of babel and noah's flood never occurred. All of this is not a catch-22, it is not proof of your god's existence.

DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Human intelligence. Creative Genius. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven. Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Design.

In all matter in the universe we see evidence of design, which is: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Whether the designer is the big bang and natural selection or whether the designer is an intelligent agent is another matter all together. However, the Atheistic + Darwinian explanations are not satisfactory to explain the universe, in the end they are nothing more than poor attempts to keep the supernatural out of the equation, when it may not be possible to do so.

The bible doesn't claim the earth is 6000 years old. Evidence for common ancestry among all life. Evidence shows there was probably a global cataclysm around the time of Noah's Flood, the same type of pressure and reactions that would take place during the flood would be similar to an ice age, which is what evidence points to.

You cannot prove a negative. It is physically impossible to disprove gods. But what we can do is show that your particular god doesn't exist. The greatest loss of human life has been at the hands of the religious. If people embraced logic and reason over archaic worship, it would bring people together. Since the renaissance, people of different race, religions and creeds have come together for the common purpose of finding the truth. As opposed to killing each other for believing the 'wrong' bed time story.

So what does this have to do with proving the non-existence of God? While religion is anchored by a belief in God, God himself has absolutely no bearing on religions as it just creates division between his creations.

 

[blue_dragon]

The universe a we know it is evidence against the christian god. It does a pretty good job of showing that the earth is older than six thousand years, that man evolved and wasn't created and that stories like the tower of babel and noah's flood never occurred. All of this is not a catch-22, it is not proof of your god's existence.

How does all of this disprove God? It may disprove stories in the Bible, but believing these findings to disprove God based on is an inference and not evidence against God at all.

You cannot prove a negative. It is physically impossible to disprove gods. But what we can do is show that your particular god doesn't exist.

You can't disprove Gods, and yet you can disprove mine?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

This is great, just great. [/sarcasm] I get to debate against ignorance. Might as well yell at a brick wall. Too bad more stuff actually gets through a brick wall.

Yet, we may end up finding out that the only way things are able to get to their present state is through premeditative intelligence. If anything, theories getting made and then getting disproven just points more toward the fact that GODIDIT.

Yes, isn't that fantastic that science may one day find that an intelligence helped create the Earth or man or whatnot. That wouldn't necessarily mean your god or even a god. A sufficiently technologically advanced species can have the power to move mountains at a whim. We can move mountains with technology and build sky scrapers and visit the moon. Isn't technology grand? It is a byproduct of science. What has your faith created, other than strife?

And proudly pronouncing that every hypothesis that gets disproven is more proof of god is a level of stupidity that should be set aside for the incredibly young or incredibly brain damaged. I guess Edison should have used that as the basis for why incandescent light cannot exist. After all, he tried dozens upon dozens of experiments to invent the light bulb, but since, according to you, each failure is proof against it, he should have obviously determined that light bulbs cannot exist.

DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Human intelligence. Creative Genius. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven. Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Design.

In all matter in the universe we see evidence of design, which is: the purposeful arrangement of parts. Whether the designer is the big bang and natural selection or whether the designer is an intelligent agent is another matter all together. However, the Atheistic + Darwinian explanations are not satisfactory to explain the universe, in the end they are nothing more than poor attempts to keep the supernatural out of the equation, when it may not be possible to do so.

You know that brow beating me is just getting annoying. Because you are a complete idiot doesn't make you right. And talking about the right topic helps when you're in a debate.

You keep jumping between big bang theory and evolutionary theory as if they are mutually inclusive. When neither theory needs the other. The universe works under natural phenomena which can be observed and trying to bring the super natural into it only muddles any scientific findings. If Galileo looked at the stars and boldy yelled "there is no way that this can happen naturally, it must be the work of god" we'd still think the sun revolves around the Earth. Instead he made observations and found that the Earth rotated around the sun, and what did your church do to him?

And even he was wrong. He couldn't observe anything past our solar system, so given his limited knowledge he believed the sun to be the center of the universe. It wasn't until the time of Bruno that we had enough data to posit that our solar system was part of a larger galaxy.

All these "disproved" theories that didn't thrust us back into godidit, but instead further into understanding how everything works. And even though they were wrong about the big picture, they were right about what they observed. The earth revolves around the sun, despite what the church says.

The bible doesn't claim the earth is 6000 years old. Evidence for common ancestry among all life. Evidence shows there was probably a global cataclysm around the time of Noah's Flood, the same type of pressure and reactions that would take place during the flood would be similar to an ice age, which is what evidence points to.

Trying to modify your stories to fit what we know now doesn't make it right. The Noah story occurred around 2900BCE when the Euphrates River flooded, it was a local flood and a local disaster. This is well documented. There is also no proof of a major catastrophe having happened within the last five thousand years to account for a world flood like your bible says. And to believe that rainbows didn't exist until after this is also ******** without any evidence to prove it. And the fact that a righteous god would choose to kill thousands of innocent children is reprehensible.

There are many flood myths among many different people. But most cultures do not have any flood myths in their history, which makes you wonder why god didn't destroy them for being wicked. What physical proof of Noah's raft can you give us?

So what does this have to do with proving the non-existence of God? While religion is anchored by a belief in God, God himself has absolutely no bearing on religions as it just creates division between his creations.

Then why did he create religion unless he wants us to kill each other? The simple answer is that god doesn't exist. Occam's razor tends towards the simple so your god must not exist.

How does all of this disprove God? It may disprove stories in the Bible, but believing these findings to disprove God based on is an inference and not evidence against God at all.

You can't disprove Gods, and yet you can disprove mine?

You use your bible to prove your god. I disprove your bible, I disprove your god. Unless you want to denounce your bible.

 

[Peeze]

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But the only problem i have with atheists is that they feel that its ignorance to believe in a creator, that only the uneducated would believe such folly. But is it really illogical to believe so? Everything on earth(humans, animals buildings) has been created. Is it so illogical to reason that all creation would similarly have a creator? Because he doesn't jump out and say "hey i made you" means he didnt create you? If you never knew your father, you wouldn't reason that you didnt have a father. Based on what you know, all humans have fathers(or sperm donors). Because you dont know him or he is seemingly detached from you doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

And stop equating "the church" with God. Because the church hated science, propogated wars, and spreads falsehoods, doesn't have any bearing on him.

 

[RDK]

So now I ask an important question. What is to be gained by disproving God? It honestly wouldn't help religious violence, as anyone warped enough to kill over religion believes enough that nothing can dissuade them. In fact, it will most likely cause more religious strife, as most non-believers will start prosecuting believers. This will likely happen in the vein of Red Darkstar's op, except that it will now be enforced by those with a sense of self-righteousness. Besides, anyone who believes in God will most likely follow religion over scientific findings.

That's my view on it all. Yes I am a Christian. I would like to add that if you address my post, it would be appreciated if you answer my question. Thank you.

What is to be gained by disproving God? The same thing that would be gained by proving him. Scientific knowledge.

We come up with theories like this so we can learn more about our universe. The whole point is to prove and disprove things.

However, we haven't come to the scientific level yet that will allow us to prove / disprove intelligent design. Hence, theories.

 

[snex]

peeze we know that to make a human you require sex between a male and a female, that is why you can infer you had a father even if you dont see him. (and strangely the irony of the implications of your example to the virgin birth story is totally lost on you).

you have absolutely NO idea how universes are created, and you only have ONE to examine, so you cant make ANY inferences about what created it.

 

[Eor]

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But the only problem i have with atheists is that they feel that its ignorance to believe in a creator, that only the uneducated would believe such folly. But is it really illogical to believe so? Everything on earth(humans, animals buildings) has been created. Is it so illogical to reason that all creation would similarly have a creator? Because he doesn't jump out and say "hey i made you" means he didnt create you? If you never knew your father, you wouldn't reason that you didnt have a father. Based on what you know, all humans have fathers(or sperm donors). Because you dont know him or he is seemingly detached from you doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

And stop equating "the church" with God. Because the church hated science, propogated wars, and spreads falsehoods, doesn't have any bearing on him.

I'm an atheist and I don't view theists as ignorant. I just view fundamentals who reject freedom and science as ignorant

 

[Gamer4Fire]

And stop equating "the church" with God. Because the church hated science, propogated wars, and spreads falsehoods, doesn't have any bearing on him.

Your actions reflect on your church as your church's actions reflect on your god. If he doesn't like it, he should fix it. Good luck with that.

 

[Quicksand]

Yes, isn't that fantastic that science may one day find that an intelligence helped create the Earth or man or whatnot. That wouldn't necessarily mean your god or even a god. A sufficiently technologically advanced species can have the power to move mountains at a whim. We can move mountains with technology and build sky scrapers and visit the moon. Isn't technology grand? It is a byproduct of science. What has your faith created, other than strife?

What it would prove though, is that what we see is not a byproduct of chance. My faith has not created any strife, the only ones who create strife are those ones who don't follow my faith. If everyone actually "loved one another", I doubt there would be much strife the world. I don't accept responsibility for hypocrites.

And proudly pronouncing that every hypothesis that gets disproven is more proof of god is a level of stupidity that should be set aside for the incredibly young or incredibly brain damaged. I guess Edison should have used that as the basis for why incandescent light cannot exist. After all, he tried dozens upon dozens of experiments to invent the light bulb, but since, according to you, each failure is proof against it, he should have obviously determined that light bulbs cannot exist.

The difference is that we might find out that life cannot come into existence without intelligence force behind it. Edison never did an experiment that showed that lightbulbs couldn't be created.

You know that brow beating me is just getting annoying. Because you are a complete idiot doesn't make you right. And talking about the right topic helps when you're in a debate.

You keep jumping between big bang theory and evolutionary theory as if they are mutually inclusive. When neither theory needs the other. The universe works under natural phenomena which can be observed and trying to bring the super natural into it only muddles any scientific findings. If Galileo looked at the stars and boldy yelled "there is no way that this can happen naturally, it must be the work of god" we'd still think the sun revolves around the Earth. Instead he made observations and found that the Earth rotated around the sun, and what did your church do to him?

Evolution is mutually exclusive to the big bang (or any other non-supernatural theory) if you're an atheist.

Trying to modify your stories to fit what we know now doesn't make it right. The Noah story occurred around 2900BCE when the Euphrates River flooded, it was a local flood and a local disaster.

Err, sorry. The flood happened in 2370 BCE.

And the fact that a righteous god would choose to kill thousands of innocent children is reprehensible.

Your lack of biblical knowledge would point you to that conclusion. Also, don't assume you know more than God.

Then why did he create religion unless he wants us to kill each other? The simple answer is that god doesn't exist. Occam's razor tends towards the simple so your god must not exist.

God didn't create religion. If Occam's razor always pointed to the correct answer then we would have a lot of wrong ideas about science.

You use your bible to prove your god. I disprove your bible, I disprove your god. Unless you want to denounce your bible.

But you haven't disproved the Bible - unless you build your own strawman just to knock it down.

 

[AltF4]

Evolution is mutually exclusive to the big bang (or any other non-supernatural theory) if you're an atheist.

Wait, what? Now that's news to me! I should really tell this to my geologist / physicist / chemist friends, they're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[blue_dragon]

What is to be gained by disproving God? The same thing that would be gained by proving him. Scientific knowledge.

We come up with theories like this so we can learn more about our universe. The whole point is to prove and disprove things.

However, we haven't come to the scientific level yet that will allow us to prove / disprove intelligent design. Hence, theories.

But said knowledge is scientific, not mechanical. All that it would do is possibly allow for God to be a scapegoat for things we can't explain. We already do that, so who would it honestly help?

Perhaps my views on this are caused by the fact that I believe that spending your whole life trying to find scientific knowledge is useless. It matters not how much knowledge one has, forsooth in death we are equal. People need to find and use mechanical knowledge instead. This can be used to help people whereas scientific knowledge helps no one. Should finding out if God exists be mechanical, then please tell me it's uses. Until then, trying to prove/disprove God is fruitless and causes unnecessary conflict. Seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge is ignorance.

And Gamer4, there are 2 problems with your sarcasm. Would you like to post to conformists? Debating against them isn't fun. If you come here to force people to conform to your beliefs, you would be better off getting an army to follow you my fuhrer. The true purpose of debating is to spread understanding and tolerance. The second problem is that if we were truly ignorant, we would post our opinions and leave. Otherwise, *gasp* our views may be changed. We post to receive understanding and as thus are not ignorant.

 

[Quicksand]

Wait, what? Now that's news to me! I should really tell this to my geologist / physicist / chemist friends, they're barking up the wrong tree.

Don't get me wrong - what I said is merely my opinion on semantics, don't take it literally.

 

[Quicksand]

EDIT: Laggy server made me double post.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Here we go again.

What it would prove though, is that what we see is not a byproduct of chance. My faith has not created any strife, the only ones who create strife are those ones who don't follow my faith. If everyone actually "loved one another", I doubt there would be much strife the world. I don't accept responsibility for hypocrites.

If everyone was christian we'd all be killing each other. Just like the protestants have been killing the catholics and vice versa since there were protestants. I wish you'd finish up and show each other your brotherly love so the rest of us can get a little more peace. Kill each other faster, xtians!

The difference is that we might find out that life cannot come into existence without intelligence force behind it. Edison never did an experiment that showed that lightbulbs couldn't be created.

Yes, we might. But until we do come to a point where the natural process requires intervention, we shouldn't assume it. To do so would be idiotic. You look for the plausible answers first before you start going crazy with the super natural, mother shucker.

The crazy thing is that we've always been able to find a plausible explanation and have never needed to go into the supernatural.

Evolution is mutually exclusive to the big bang (or any other non-supernatural theory) if you're an atheist.

Do you even know what I'm saying or are you just posting stuff because you think it sounds cool. Let me explain what mutually exclusive means, idiot. It means that if one thing exist (or is true) the other thing cannot exist (be true). Those two theories have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that they both pertain to this universe. Maybe you should have read a science textbook instead of the bible. You'd know stuff.

Err, sorry. The flood happened in 2370 BCE.

Call China then, because they didn't have a global flood at that time. I don't care what date you want to magically change it to, there is no evidence of a global flood. I gave you the flooding of the Euphrates, but if you don't want to take it, that's your problem. Give me your proof that a global flood happened in 2370 BCE, and keep in mind that China already proves it never happened.

Your lack of biblical knowledge would point you to that conclusion. Also, don't assume you know more than God.

I assume I know more than a figment of your imagination because you are a dung bat.

God didn't create religion. If Occam's razor always pointed to the correct answer then we would have a lot of wrong ideas about science.

HAHAHAHAHA! You don't know what Occam's razor is either, do you? What type of moron posts about stuff that they just hear of without knowing anything else about it? Oh wait, YOU!

You are six types of stupid, you know that?

But you haven't disproved the Bible - unless you build your own strawman just to knock it down.

I'd say I'm doing a pretty fair job, seeing as how you have failed to defend it. I'd be able to do a better job if you didn't constantly change what the bible means. I can point out all the built in errancy I want, but you just come out and say it means something different. And another xtian will say it means something else. The bible is as flimsy as a block of jello and it means anything you want it to.

But let me disprove your bible a little, lets point out the best known screw-up in the bible, the resurrection of jesus!

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) or when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)or Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) or closed (Matt 28:1-2)

Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2), a young man (Mark 16:5), two men (Luke 24:4) or two angels (John 20:11-12)

Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) or inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) or sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) or no she did not (John 20:14).

Now these are mutually exclusive statements, because they can't all be true. You understand what that means now? I'm pretty sure that the resurrection is supposed to be important for some reason, oh yeah, it's the entire basis of your belief in salvation!

Here's another inconsistency that happened early in this fairy tale, what was the last thing that Jesus said before he died? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?(Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34 ), Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. (Luke 23:46) or It is finished. (John 19:30)

Good luck, sucker.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I don't know - you tell me why the "bacterial fossils" found on ALH84001 (the Mars meteorite) are highly disputed among scientists as to whether they are what they claim to be. Also, why have we not found any life, anywhere, on any planet?
Cause other planets are gay.
Really, it's because they don't have the corrects atmospheric gases >_>



If scientists, with all the knowledge we have accumulated so far, can't even make homochirality come out of whatever forced combination under preset circumstances. How can we expect blind, limited, natural causes to create life?
Evolution can't be real cause nature can't think? Yeah, nature is so stupid, the humans it made can't make life <_<


I think the problem lies in thinking that people have which inexplicably relates God to religion. It simply is not the case. Under God's Kingdom there will be no religions, religion only causes division and is something tolerated under this imperfect system.
Ummm... wtf? No religion = not believing in god = sin = hell o.O

i just saw these from the page back

 

[Quicksand]

If everyone was christian we'd all be killing each other. Just like the protestants have been killing the catholics and vice versa since there were protestants. I wish you'd finish up and show each other your brotherly love so the rest of us can get a little more peace. Kill each other faster, xtians

Not if everyone was a real Christian. The Christians you see today are nothing more than talkers but not walkers.

Yes, we might. But until we do come to a point where the natural process requires intervention, we shouldn't assume it. To do so would be idiotic. You look for the plausible answers first before you start going crazy with the super natural, mother shucker.

I agree, but it doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist.

The crazy thing is that we've always been able to find a plausible explanation and have never needed to go into the supernatural.

What caused the Big Bang?

Do you even know what I'm saying or are you just posting stuff because you think it sounds cool. Let me explain what mutually exclusive means, idiot. It means that if one thing exist (or is true) the other thing cannot exist (be true). Those two theories have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that they both pertain to this universe. Maybe you should have read a science textbook instead of the bible. You'd know stuff.

Sorry, I misused the word "mutually". It's always good in an argument of semantics to able to pull out insults to prove your point.

Call China then, because they didn't have a global flood at that time. I don't care what date you want to magically change it to, there is no evidence of a global flood. I gave you the flooding of the Euphrates, but if you don't want to take it, that's your problem. Give me your proof that a global flood happened in 2370 BCE, and keep in mind that China already proves it never happened.

Why does China disprove it?

"The way fishes by the millions are entombed in the rocks of England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Switzerland, the American Rockies; the way elephants and rhinoceroses are buried by the millions in Alaska, Siberia, England, Italy, Greece; the way hippopotami are buried by the thousands in Sicily; the way reptiles are buried by the millions in western Canada, the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, to mention only a portion of such instances, absolutely require the explanation of great catastrophes for their elucidation."

"Comparatively few remains of organisms now inhabiting the earth are being deposited under conditions favorable for their preservation as fossils... It is, nevertheless, remarkable that so vast a number of fossils are embedded in the rocks." -William Miller, Geologist

We know that a global cataclysm occurred, logically we could subscribe to the flood.

I assume I know more than a figment of your imagination because you are a dung bat.

But the argument of God, you would have to assume that he is indeed omniscient.

HAHAHAHAHA! You don't know what Occam's razor is either, do you? What type of moron posts about stuff that they just hear of without knowing anything else about it? Oh wait, YOU!

You are six types of stupid, you know that?

I hope you're able to make yourself feel intellectually superior to me by spouting insults as a countermeasure to not being able to form a valid argument.

But let me disprove your bible a little, lets point out the best known screw-up in the bible, the resurrection of jesus!

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) or when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

Both. They began their visit which was "toward the dawn" when it was still dark out but when it was also sunrise. You have to remember, there were two groups of women. All the gospel accounts completely agree with one another that all the women visited the tomb early in the morning.

Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)or Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

They all came. Just because some were left out from different writers doesn't mean anything, especially since it never says "alone".

Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) or closed (Matt 28:1-2)

What? It says it was rolled away in both scriptures.

Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2), a young man (Mark 16:5), two men (Luke 24:4) or two angels (John 20:11-12)

Man, you are really grasping for any semblance of "errors" that you can possibly find. These scriptures don't contradict each other. In each case, angel(s) were seen.

Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) or inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) or sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

Here, let me manipulate the scriptures to fit my agenda: They're all true. Each is written from different perspectives and may have wrote about different periods of time.

Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) or no she did not (John 20:14).

Uh, yeah. She didn't recognize him. Read further into John and she runs and tells everybody "hay guise jesus is bak".

Now these are mutually exclusive statements, because they can't all be true. You understand what that means now? I'm pretty sure that the resurrection is supposed to be important for some reason, oh yeah, it's the entire basis of your belief in salvation!

Here's another inconsistency that happened early in this fairy tale, what was the last thing that Jesus said before he died? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?(Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34 ), Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. (Luke 23:46) or It is finished. (John 19:30)

Good luck, sucker.

As usual, each gospel writer emphasized phrases he felt more important than others. The whole reason that we have 4 gospels is so we can get several view points and get the clearest image possible on exactly what happened.

Too bad life doesn't spring from methane and ammonia when struck by a lightning bolt cause then we could go ahead and get rid of my imaginary friend. QED is lacking.

Cause other planets are gay.
Really, it's because they don't have the corrects atmospheric gases >_>

I thought evolution adapted to it's environment?

Evolution can't be real cause nature can't think? Yeah, nature is so stupid, the humans it made can't make life <_<

So if random lightning striking prebiotic soup can't make life, how can we expect scientists using every combination possible not being able to make it, give the theory any more credibility?

Ummm... wtf? No religion = not believing in god = sin = hell o.O

No religion = not believing in god = sin = hell = common grave of mankind = everyone goes there = Acts 24:15 'There will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous'.

 

[AltF4]

Don't get me wrong - what I said is merely my opinion on semantics, don't take it literally.

Well, then how ought I to interpret your words? They seemed perfectly explicit to me. And this isn't a matter of opinion, but one of fact. Either the Universe was created in a big bang or it wasn't. Either evolutionary theory correctly describes life processes on earth or it doesn't. There's no room for opinion, just evidence to back up theories.

 

[RDK]

But said knowledge is scientific, not mechanical. All that it would do is possibly allow for God to be a scapegoat for things we can't explain. We already do that, so who would it honestly help?

Perhaps my views on this are caused by the fact that I believe that spending your whole life trying to find scientific knowledge is useless. It matters not how much knowledge one has, forsooth in death we are equal. People need to find and use mechanical knowledge instead. This can be used to help people whereas scientific knowledge helps no one. Should finding out if God exists be mechanical, then please tell me it's uses. Until then, trying to prove/disprove God is fruitless and causes unnecessary conflict. Seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge is ignorance.

....so lemme get this straight.

You'd rather that mankind be in complete dark about our surroundings and universe as a whole than learn as much as possible about it to further our existence? Sounds a little odd to me that you'd throw scientific knowledge out the window so readily.

Without science, we're just another animal.

And you're partially right about the use of mechanical knowledge to further ourselves, but at some point the lack of scientific knowledge inhibits using mechanical knowledge to its greatest potential.

So since you don't believe in the spirit of discovery so greatly associated with humans, what do you think our ultimate goal is? Altruism?

 

[blue_dragon]

....so lemme get this straight.

You'd rather that mankind be in complete dark about our surroundings and universe as a whole than learn as much as possible about it to further our existence? Sounds a little odd to me that you'd throw scientific knowledge out the window so readily.

Without science, we're just another animal.

And you're partially right about the use of mechanical knowledge to further ourselves, but at some point the lack of scientific knowledge inhibits using mechanical knowledge to its greatest potential.

So since you don't believe in the spirit of discovery so greatly associated with humans, what do you think our ultimate goal is? Altruism?

Ah, but I said spending your whole life for just SK. That is worthless because it helps no one. Scientific knowledge which can be used mechanically is what we need. Whether God exists/doesn't is not that.

Sadly, I believe that due to human nature, we will spread across the universe; all the whilst we will conquer all in our way. Such is human nature. However, this is where useful Scientific Knowledge comes in handy. We will spread our music and culture and be known for our knowledge. Or we'll all die on Earth.

 

[RDK]

Ah, but I said spending your whole life for just SK. That is worthless because it helps no one. Scientific knowledge which can be used mechanically is what we need. Whether God exists/doesn't is not that.

Sadly, I believe that due to human nature, we will spread across the universe; all the whilst we will conquer all in our way. Such is human nature. However, this is where useful Scientific Knowledge comes in handy. We will spread our music and culture and be known for our knowledge. Or we'll all die on Earth.

Well if one thing's for sure, the Earth will be here long after we disappear. I get so tired of all this Global Warming bull**** that the liberal left spews out all the time.

The Earth survived millions of years of abuse, often at the price of its dominant species. There's no reason it shouldn't survive us.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I thought evolution adapted to it's environment?
Lol, i'm sorry but i lol'd. Do you understand how atomic bonds work? Most specifically, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or phosphorous?


So if random lightning striking prebiotic soup can't make life, how can we expect scientists using every combination possible not being able to make it, give the theory any more credibility?
Because scientists don't have a few million years to spare. Nature does it better, like it does EVERYTHING better


No religion = not believing in god = sin = hell = common grave of mankind = everyone goes there = Acts 24:15 'There will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous'.
So your point was religion is stupid because without it we all go to hell? I'd rather not take my chances and believe in god

So yeah, science proves you wrong. Not religion, just you

 

[Quicksand]

Lol, i'm sorry but i lol'd. Do you understand how atomic bonds work? Most specifically, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or phosphorous?

Yes, I do have an (albeit limited) understanding on how atomic bonds work. I thought that micro organisms were found on Mars remember?

Because scientists don't have a few million years to spare. Nature does it better, like it does EVERYTHING better

It takes a few million years to make a simple cell? Let's face the facts here, scientists have (and admit to have) absolutely no idea how life came about. It's not a matter of time they need.

So your point was religion is stupid because without it we all go to hell? I'd rather not take my chances and believe in god

No, religion is stupid because it creates division. Everyone is going to hell no matter what and we are all going to stay there until God resurrects us (I don't care if you think your going to heaven or earth, hell is your first stop if you die). Hell is not a place of burning torment, hell as described in the bible is just the grave, an unconcious state of being, there is nothing supernatural or unknown about it. (anyone who has ever gone to heaven has been to hell, even if only for a "twinkling of an eye" (1 cor 15:52) before they are resurrected to heaven)

The Earth survived millions of years of abuse, often at the price of its dominant species. There's no reason it shouldn't survive us.

I don't think it is a matter of the Earth surviving us, I think it's a matter of us surviving us.

 

[Sandy]

A question, to decided atheists: Do you believe that there is a meaning to life?

 

[RDK]

A question, to decided atheists: Do you believe that there is a meaning to life?

*SIGH*

So I assume you're going to say that without a god, there's no meaning to life.

 

[AltF4]

A question, to decided atheists: Do you believe that there is a meaning to life?

That's an easy question to answer. A meaning to whom? Who decides what meaning my life has to have? My life has meaning to me because I enjoy it greatly, and it doesn't matter to me how it came into being. The origin of the universe doesn't change the fact that I enjoy life, and I'm going to keep on doing so as long as I can.

But a "meaning to life" on a cosmic scale doesn't exist. There is no predetermined meaning to anyone's life as if they were somehow special. It's an incredible feat of arrogance to suppose that your life, your insignificant human existence, somehow has some special cosmic purpose.

 

[blue_dragon]

A question, to decided atheists: Do you believe that there is a meaning to life?

Atheist or not, the meaning of life is individual. It's not like Atheists huddle in a corner to decide the meaning of life. Just as other religions do not. I ask you, what do you believe the meaning of life to be? I am sure that your's has a vital flaw in it, as does every other one in existance.

Living to help others - Why are they living?
To cleanse the world (if Hitler) - Are you not dirty as well?
No meaning - Then why live?

Life is an enigma, just like God. Try to find out it's meaning all your life, and you will not be living at all. It's something you pick up on your journey (like that hockey-masked maniac) through life. Just keep on truckin', you'll find your answer in the end.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Yes, I do have an (albeit limited) understanding on how atomic bonds work. I thought that micro organisms were found on Mars remember?
Ok, then you should know that only Earth and Mars(out of found and explored planets) are suitable for life because their gases(which are 'biological' gases) are correct, the temperature is right(too cold = no gas movement, too hot = gases are too sporadic), and the planets have abundant amounts of water(VITAL to a living system. Also, most species are believed to have evolved from moist/wet places)


It takes a few million years to make a simple cell? Let's face the facts here, scientists have (and admit to have) absolutely no idea how life came about. It's not a matter of time they need.
Yeah, they don't. They just know that it takes a LONG time. Mars prolly has life because it use to be of the correct temperature and lighting(with the right gases) under which biological compounds are PROVED to form. After that they just had to survive the freezing.



No, religion is stupid because it creates division. Everyone is going to hell no matter what and we are all going to stay there until God resurrects us (I don't care if you think your going to heaven or earth, hell is your first stop if you die). Hell is not a place of burning torment, hell as described in the bible is just the grave, an unconcious state of being, there is nothing supernatural or unknown about it. (anyone who has ever gone to heaven has been to hell, even if only for a "twinkling of an eye" (1 cor 15:52) before they are resurrected to heaven)
Humans create division, not religion.

I'm just gonna say it. Men of religion should not dispute evolution, and scientists should not refuse god because the argument is pointless and impossible. I'm hear to clear up false assumptions.

 

[Digital Watches]

See, I didn't want to get involved in this debate, as frankly, I see it as pointless and stupid. But now it makes sense. You theists all have the same problem: You assume your conclusions in your reasoning, and that's a pet peeve of mine.

I find certain ironys in this whole situation.

We are all accustomed to the core belief of theories, "A theory can never be proved, only disproved."

To be a theory in the first place, a hypothesis (And to clarify our terms, I could easily hypothesize that invisible, intangible dinosaurs roam the universe enforcing gravity) needs a lot of observations that support it. Name me one that can't be explained by anything else, and doesn't only work from the basic assumption that god exists.

Most Christians, except for the nuts, do not try to prove God. Most Christians understand that God is impossible to prove with the evidence they have. Mainly because they realize that if God is proven as existing, they cannot believe in Him.

I dunno, I tend to believe things that are demonstrated to be true more than things that aren't. Maybe I'm doing it backwards.

Now for the irony:
Most theorists try to disprove God by giving theories as to how the universe/earth/organisms were developed. How exactly can these disprove God?

Bah. You've got it backwards. These theories come up because science seeks to describe the world we live in. It's the crazies that reject these theories because THEY claim that they contradict their god.

And then you have the others who try to disprove God with evidence. This cannot work as it enacts a certain Catch-22. Any evidence of God's unexistance would in fact prove his existance.

This logic doesn't even deserve a response. It simply doesn't make sense. "Any disproof is proof?" That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

So now I ask an important question. What is to be gained by disproving God? It honestly wouldn't help religious violence, as anyone warped enough to kill over religion believes enough that nothing can dissuade them. In fact, it will most likely cause more religious strife, as most non-believers will start prosecuting believers. This will likely happen in the vein of Red Darkstar's op, except that it will now be enforced by those with a sense of self-righteousness. Besides, anyone who believes in God will most likely follow religion over scientific findings.

I doubt most scientists would mind religion so much if people would just quit trying to pit them against each other. Science, again, sets out to observe and describe the universe in such a manner as can produce theories that can feasibly predict the behavior of (insert subject) within given circumstances. What crazy assertions you choose to believe are none of science's business until you make it their business. But at any rate, you assume too much when you claim that anyone is trying to disprove god. There's no REASON to, any more than there's a reason to disprove my gravity-dinosaurs. Wild assertions can be made by anyone, and if serious scholars took the time to disprove all of them, they wouldn't have time to do anything actually worthwhile. Frankly, I don't see the difference between your god and my dinosaurs, except that yours is a lot more popular.

 

[Quicksand]

This logic doesn't even deserve a response. It simply doesn't make sense. "Any disproof is proof?" That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

So if you have two suspect in a murder and you have "disproof" for one of them, that isn't more proof toward the other suspect?

 

[Digital Watches]

So if you have two suspect in a murder and you have "disproof" for one of them, that isn't more proof toward the other suspect?

Right, except that Mr. Dragon over there isn't proposing that disproof of god is proof of something else, he's proposing that disproof of god is proof of god. It's ludicrous.

 

[Quicksand]

Right, except that Mr. Dragon over there isn't proposing that disproof of god is proof of something else, he's proposing that disproof of god is proof of god. It's ludicrous.

I haven't been following your guys conversation so I have absolutely no idea, heh.

 

[Sandy]

Just thought I would add to this in saying that I do not think life has a meaning, and I do believe in God. When I observe what life really is, I see that it just is cells metabolizing, adapting, and reproducing. I do not believe that God put any real meaning in life other than for it to exist. Any other meaning simply comes from what we, humans, can apply to life.

This is not addressed to anyone specifically, but I thought it might be a good thing for general consideration.

 

[YellowPikmin]

That's an interesting viewpoint Tiger, but I have a few questions. If there is no meaning in life, then morality would change quite a bit. If life is simply chemical reactions and metabolizing whatnot, murder is no longer "wrong". All you've done is stopped some chemical reactions; it's no different than putting out a fire.

Of course, rampant murder would not be a very good idea, for as humans we depend on each other to survive. However, morality would really only be concerned with what is practical, and the terms "right" and "wrong" would take on very different meanings.

I understand that this may not be something you disagree with; morality may be, for you, exactly what I have described. If this is the case, please clarify that for me.

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. You said that there's no "real meaning in life other than for it to exist". So, are you saying that life has no meaning or value, or that life has value and meaning in and of itself?

 

[blue_dragon]

Right, except that Mr. Dragon over there isn't proposing that disproof of god is proof of something else, he's proposing that disproof of god is proof of god. It's ludicrous.

However, have you read Catch-22? That is exactly what the book is about. It is a form of circular logic and an interesting research topic. I highly suggest the reading of at least the first three chapters.

And that's the thing, you simply cannot find proof of God's nonexistance. Anything amazing enough to do that would point towards God's existance.

 

[AltF4]

Okay, blue dragon, I completely fail to see how that makes sense. First off, we have to be talking about a specific god, and I assume that we're talking about the christian god, and likely a specific denomination within christianity.

The christian god is omnipotent and omniscient, both of which are impossible. Omniscience violates everything quantum mechanics stands for, and omnipotence just goes right out and violates causality. So there, that god is impossible and thus disproven. How, then, is that evidence for his existence?!

You could perhaps try to refute my arguments, but even if you are successful, that is not proof of god, but just a refutation of a disproof.

 

[blue_dragon]

Okay, blue dragon, I completely fail to see how that makes sense. First off, we have to be talking about a specific god, and I assume that we're talking about the christian god, and likely a specific denomination within christianity.

The christian god is omnipotent and omniscient, both of which are impossible. Omniscience violates everything quantum mechanics stands for, and omnipotence just goes right out and violates causality. So there, that god is impossible and thus disproven. How, then, is that evidence for his existence?!

You could perhaps try to refute my arguments, but even if you are successful, that is not proof of god, but just a refutation of a disproof.

But see, you are using science. And science assumes God is nonexistant.

And how does omniscience violate all of quantum mechanics?