How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[DeadtoSin]

Well, I suppose that is where we disagree. I cannot say I really agree that my emotions and feelings are simply part of a reaction that occurred because my ancestry had the same emotions. I'm not really certain where to go with this. This point really seems to dead-end into an evolution debate at this point.

And yeah, his good advice does not prove that he is God. That is one of many reasons that I believe in a God. I made the post to try and get this topic back on track as a kind of apology since I accidentally derailed it. I did sort of take your posts personal, because I assumed you thought I was ignorant. Looking back, you just thought I was discounting your evidence without looking at it. I really was not, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I am a scientist at heart, and I really do look at the evidence. I appreciate those links that were given about the link between monkeys and humans. I hardly think that it is conclusive evidence, but it is something I had not heard about before. We are all so opinionated on evolution, I feel the need to go into really WHY I chose to believe in God. It is not like I was raised in a Christian household. In fact, I did not believe in God by any stretch of the imagination.

A big part of it had to do with my fellow peers I hung around with. I saw the faith they had, how it affected them, how it affected the people around them and the peace they had through hardships and trials. It made me curious, and I cautiously began honestly seeking answers. To my surprise, not all of them were knuckle dragging redneck anti-intellectuals like I had thought.

In fact, I found a man who has a podcast that you guys might all like. It is called "Let my people think" by Ravi Zacharias. I enjoy him, because he has a more philosophical lecture style rather than a "sermon".

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I don't want to dirty my post with penile references, but here.

Spoiler

The benefits of circumcision include:

• Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [408].

• Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the ***** [162, 168, 172].

• Reduced urinary tract infections.

• Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.

• Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in men and their partner(s).

• Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.

• Decrease in urological problems generally.

That's it, I'm done. Please do not reply to this section of this post, it will derail it to no end.

This is a reply to your statements specifically to derail it to no end.

But good job for looking up penile information. It was really big of you. I'm glad you were up for the challenge. It must have been hard to think of where to get it. Then again, the idea must have exploded from your mind. It must have been the climax of your search. Too bad after you posted it, it must have let you down. Then you rolled over and went to sleep so that you could:

Wake up. Really. Wake up.

The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup.

If you have not been given or experienced evidence for either side, aren't you classifying yourself as agnostic?

What evidence is there that gods don't exist? I don't believe in any gods, that makes me atheist (a=no theist=gods). Since I don't discount the fact that a god might somehow exist, I guess you could find a way to classify me as agnostic, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't believe in gods.

I do not identify with the Bible whatsoever. I have not ever stated a specific entity at all, all I talk about is the general. I do not believe in a God, nor do I disbelieve in a God.

Then get off the fence already.

 

[AltF4]

\But good job for looking up penile information. It was really big of you. I'm glad you were up for the challenge. It must have been hard to think of where to get it. Then again, the idea must have exploded from your mind. It must have been the climax of your search. Too bad after you posted it, it must have let you down. Then you rolled over and went to sleep so that you could:.

Hahaha! Lol!

 

[lonejedi]

and your claims for circumcision would apply equally well to ears. cut off a child's ears and he cant get ear cancer. hallelujah! if an 18 year old adult wants to circumcise himself, thats his right. you have no right to do it to an innocent child who cannot make a decision for himself. post a new thread for this if you want to continue.

I know this might seem very off-topic, but I can't help but wonder how you are against the circumcision of baby's, but for abortion. That just baffles my mind.

 

[cF=)]

I know this might seem very off-topic, but I can't help but wonder how you are against the circumcision of baby's, but for abortion. That just baffles my mind.

That goes to show you understand absolutely nothing about cell growth and the difference between a potential human being and a bunch of inanimate cells. But let's not start a debate about that here.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I know this might seem very off-topic, but I can't help but wonder how you are against the circumcision of baby's, but for abortion. That just baffles my mind.

The same reason why I don't have a problem losing some blood for a lab sample but have a major problem if someone wants to cut off my nose. One is the destruction of some cells, the other is the disfigurement of an individual.

 

[snex]

I know this might seem very off-topic, but I can't help but wonder how you are against the circumcision of baby's, but for abortion. That just baffles my mind.

the line must be drawn somewhere, and i agree with the supreme court's line, which is set at the point of viability outside of the womb. as technology gets better, this line will become earlier in development. eventually, the need for abortion will be gone completely.

instead of swallowing anti-choice propaganda that photoshops full babies covered in blood and gore, or zooms into a fetus and fails to tell you that they are at 1000X zoom, perhaps you should look into how abortions *actually* get done.

if a woman wants an abortion, she isnt going to wait until the fetus is a considerable size - she is going to do it within the first few weeks, likely right after she discovers she is pregnant.

a newborn baby *is* one of those full sized babies that you see in anti-choice propaganda, and they are forcefully strapped onto a table so a doctor can permanently chop off a part of their anatomy which *will* affect their sexual function later in life. and it is extremely painful for the baby. and sometimes, the operation goes wrong.

 

[Peeze]

Looking around at creation, i believe there is a God. Complex life could not have sprung up from a lucky explosion of chemicals. Just as every house has a designer, and cant just spring from an explosion of wood, bricks and shingles, i dont think its possible for the universe to fit so well as it does without a design.

That being said, i think most people find it hard to believe in an omnipotent God becuase a loving just god couldn't-wouldnt allow human sufffering to continue. But most religions, fail to address the reason a God would do that. I heard a illustration the other day that i thought did a good job of explaining:

Imagine your a teacher. And everytime you start teaching, a rowdy student disrupts your classroom, convincing some students that you have no idea what your teaching. You have two choices: you can kick the kid outta your class. Simple enough right? Well maybe, but then the other students in the class could lose respect for you, thinking you have a fear of being proven wrong. Your other choice is to let the rebel student teach the class and try to prove his point. Now you know he's dead wrong and will fail. But letting him teach, will prove a point. You as the teacher are the only one qualified to teach the room, and if another rebellious student arises, you already have a touchstone, or a basis to prove your authority.

Christian religions blame God for the wrong that occurs, when really the Bible shows that the world is lying in the power of thew wicked one(satan). He is the rebel student given a short time to prove his point. Under Satan's rule, man has deteriorated into violent, selfish dominating beings.

The bible also says that the devil knows his time is short, so soon God will act. That sounds cliche but if you feel distressed over the worlds circumstances, how much more so would the God who is the epitome of love.
You asked how anyone could believe in God, thats how i can believe, in a nutshell.
[/end of a preachy rant by a temp debater workin hard to be a permanent debater]

 

[AltF4]

Peeze:

1) Anthropic Principle

2) The analogy works more like this: You are an omnipotent teacher. Why you are having trouble doing anything is just stupid and contradictory. Your inability to create a perfect world makes you by definition not omnipotent.

That's why the concept of a god isn't contradictory. But the christian god is. The very concept of omnipotence is impossible, and is at best an exaggeration of the writers of the bible.

 

[snex]

so peeze, god cant make satan understand? god cant make satan vanish? who created satan in the first place?

do you even THINK before you post this crap?

EDIT: and stop with the stupid strawmen of evolution and physics. ive already given info on evolution that nobody can dispute. READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST THIS CRAP. you are repeating LIES, and even your bible says to not do that.

 

[Peeze]

I read the thread. Calm down. Lets have a rational reasonable conversation please. Or are your angry, biting remarks a way of proving that you descented from primates?

If God made satan vanish, couldn't others challenge God's right to rule just as Satan did. Letting satan rule for a while would prove the point once and for all. Like supreme court cases, i.e. Brown vs board of education says segregation in schools is illegal, right. Thats it. No other school can segregate, and if the issue is brought up it wont have to go back through court, a ruling was already given on record.

Your 2nd question: who created satan? Well who creates a murderer? A murderer isn't born a murderer he becomes it later based on circumstances or experiences. Satan was created perfect, he chose to do what he did.

Maybe its my ignorance but i dont understand what "strawmen of evolution and physics means". please explain.
The theory of evolution says roughly(correct me if i'm wrong), that all life sprung from particles of energy(quarks and leptons i think?) and evolved over millions of years into first one celled organisms and then more complex beings, that follow the basic tenet of evolution "survival of the fittest".

Where did those quarks and leptons come from? Who or what provided the energy required to start the "Big Bang"? Newtons 1st law of motion says that a motion at rest will tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts on it. If nothing existed before the big bang, the law of inertia says nothing should exist...unless an outside force put something in moition.

And regarding "survival of the fittest" how does altruism fit into that? Why do some people give their life to save others, if they only want to look out for their own self-interest and to continue their lineage?

 

[RDK]

And regarding "survival of the fittest" how does altruism fit into that? Why do some people give their life to save others, if they only want to look out for their own self-interest and to continue their lineage?

Things like altruism stem from humanity's post-animal abilities. You don't see dogs going around practicing altruism.

It's just another part of the package of being highly evolved. We have the intelligence and intuition to create and contribute to philosophical theories. Lower animals can't do that.

Humans have a lot of things animals don't. Consciences, the ability to love, sexual fetishes, etc.

 

[Peeze]

Wait since when are humans post-animal? Humans are animals. Plenty of dogs have been recorded saving the lives of humans. Thats not altruistic?
If humans have alot of "post animal abilities" that animals don't, then your saying that they stopped evolving, and humans continue to evolve? I dont understand your post.

 

[RDK]

Wait since when are humans post-animal? Humans are animals. Plenty of dogs have been recorded saving the lives of humans. Thats not altruistic?
If humans have alot of "post animal abilities" that animals don't, then your saying that they stopped evolving, and humans continue to evolve? I dont understand your post.

I never said that other animals stopped evolving. I merely stated that some animals are at a higher level of evolution than others.

I.E., we're not at the same evolutionary stage as dogs. We're higher beings.

 

[lonejedi]

Here's something that I want explained Snex. Where did all these evolutions come from? You'll say a cell. Well where did that cell come from, you'll say the big bang, which you will then say came from a super nova exploding, but where did that super nova come from? These things can't just exist, that would defeat logic. And if you say they can, then why can't God exist?

 

[cF=)]

Read the thread backward, AltF4 already covered this point.

 

[AltF4]

Yea, that was quite a bit ago. But yes, a god is not necessary for the universe to exist. It can simply "be" without having been created at all.

 

[RDK]

Alt's avatar just gave me a nerdgasm.

 

[lonejedi]

Yea, that was quite a bit ago. But yes, a god is not necessary for the universe to exist. It can simply "be" without having been created at all.

How so? How can this world be without something being able to exist before that. I'm sorry if I missed this post, if you could link me to it, that would be wonderful.

 

[Kips]

um no. meaning YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT ATHEISTS SAY! how many times do i have to tell you that atheism is simply a lack of belief, NOT the assertion "god does not exist?" DISBELIEF IS NOT A BELIEF.

when are you going to stop lying about this?

and your claims for circumcision would apply equally well to ears. cut off a child's ears and he cant get ear cancer. hallelujah! if an 18 year old adult wants to circumcise himself, thats his right. you have no right to do it to an innocent child who cannot make a decision for himself. post a new thread for this if you want to continue.

Simply put, you are skating on thin ice. Atheism is simply playing the game of 'Nuh-uh!' vs. 'Yuh-huh!' until someone throws up from the sheer agony of saying it over nine thousand times. Not that I am particularly religious, but Atheism simply has too little logic for me. Solid points in it are rare and most of it is based on ridicule of anothers beliefs.

On a side note- Circumcision on an innocent child? What is bad about it? Otherwise, it's going to hurt a lot more if they choose to do it later on, it's healthier for them and quite simply it is not just in religion.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

How so? How can this world be without something being able to exist before that. I'm sorry if I missed this post, if you could link me to it, that would be wonderful.

Well, then you get into infinite causes. What caused the creation of the universe. Okay, what created that and what created that and what created that etc. And if you say that god created the world and nothing existed before him, then WTF? You can't believe that the universe always existed but you can believe that god did? That's just self contradictory.

Simply put, you are skating on thin ice. Atheism is simply playing the game of 'Nuh-uh!' vs. 'Yuh-huh!' until someone throws up from the sheer agony of saying it over nine thousand times. Not that I am particularly religious, but Atheism simply has too little logic for me. Solid points in it are rare and most of it is based on ridicule of anothers beliefs.

What solid points is it based on? And how is it based on ridicule of other religions? Atheism, latin A for 'lack of' and Theism for 'belief in gods' is the lack of belief in gods, literally. Can you give me proof in the existance of a god? If you can I'll believe in it, if you can't I won't believe. If I don't believe, I'm an Atheist.

In other words, atheism is the default position. You don't believe in gods or Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny until someone else tells you about them. Until someone tells you about a god, any god, you are an atheist.

 

[lonejedi]

Well, then you get into infinite causes. What caused the creation of the universe. Okay, what created that and what created that and what created that etc. And if you say that god created the world and nothing existed before him, then WTF? You can't believe that the universe always existed but you can believe that god did? That's just self contradictory.

No it's not. Here's my point. I believe that God was here, by faith. So for you to believe that something was always here, and didn't come from something, then you are using the same faith that I am, and it's now not based on logic, but what you think you happened. So when you question my belief in a God that always was, you have to question your belief in particles that always were.

 

[AltF4]

That's fair. You can pretty much just google "Hawking no boundary" but here are some good ones.

Stephen Hawking's Website
Quotation number three from here. (Funny story)
Audio recording of a lecture by Hawking on the subject
The full thing with as much jargon as you can handle. (Start on page 223)

and "A Brief History of Time" (The Book)

There ya go, Jedi. All the info on the subject you could want.


By the way, never say that your beliefs aren't based on logic. When you come to a debate, you do so with the assumption that you are a rational being. This means that you obey the laws of logic.

When you say "my beliefs aren't based in logic" it's equivalent to "my beliefs aren't based on anything, and I've shut my eyes and ears to the world and won't listen to anything someone says to the contrary." Don't be ignorant, if your beliefs are shown to be contradictory, get new ones. Don't hold on to outdated dogma despite overwhelming evidence and irrefutable logic.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

No it's not. Here's my point. I believe that God was here, by faith. So for you to believe that something was always here, and didn't come from something, then you are using the same faith that I am, and it's now not based on logic, but what you think you happened. So when you question my belief in a God that always was, you have to question your belief in particles that always were.

Yes, I have faith based on logic while you have faith without logic. Sums it up pretty well. The world is here. I can touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it and see it. The world was here yesterday, the day before that and the day before that. This is where the faith and logic come in, I believe (have faith) that the world existed before I was born. It logically follows that I could not exist as I am now in this world unless it existed before my conception. Now it logically follows that the universe has always existed and I have faith that it did because otherwise I wouldn't exist in it.

You, on the other hand, believe in the existence of a being without any proof or logical argument (basis) of its existence.

 

[lonejedi]

Yes, I have faith based on logic while you have faith without logic. Sums it up pretty well. The world is here. I can touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it and see it. The world was here yesterday, the day before that and the day before that. This is where the faith and logic come in, I believe (have faith) that the world existed before I was born. It logically follows that I could not exist as I am now in this world unless it existed before my conception. Now it logically follows that the universe has always existed and I have faith that it did because otherwise I wouldn't exist in it.

You, on the other hand, believe in the existence of a being without any proof or logical argument (basis) of its existence.

You don't get my point, Im not talking about the earth. Im talking about how the earth got here, you have no proof of how the earth came together, because everything had to have an origin. If the earth came from the Big Bang, well where did that come from, and so on.

Alt, could you summarize what he is saying, some of those lectures are pretty intimidating.

 

[Peeze]

Gamer4fire: You believe in tangibles. So because a god isn't a tangible being you feel its illogical to believe in him? In that case how do we know that the wind exists. Because we see the results of wind, trees blowing etc, etc. Faith in a God is based on the logic that humans can't see god but knows he exists because great explosions of energy don't create life.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

You don't get my point, Im not talking about the earth. Im talking about how the earth got here, you have no proof of how the earth came together, because everything had to have an origin. If the earth came from the Big Bang, well where did that come from, and so on.

The question was about causation. Stop trying to change the question. It makes it hard to discuss things when you change the subject without notice.

 

[AltF4]

Lonejedi:

Yea, it's pretty dry. Here's a summary I gave a while ago in another thread. (And earlier in this one too actually)

One of the very first things that you think about when you hear the bing bang theory is: "Well, that's all fine and good. But what happened before the big bang? And what caused it to bang?" These are important questions, because the answer is not at all obvious.

The Big Bang says that everything in the universe began with one huge explosion. Our progress thus far in physics has been extremely successful in describing the universe in the moments after the big bang. But when you talk about the actual moment of creation, things break down. At that moment, energy seemingly popped out of nowhere. At that moment, all kinds of stuff happened that we can't explain.

The problem is with what is called the "boundary condition". That is, if someone asks you: "What is the boundary of time?" they are asking: "Did time continue infinitely before us? Or did it begin at some point?" The solution to these problems was developed by Stephen Hawking. He proposed the "No Boundary" boundary condition.

Let's not think of time for a moment and think of space. Is space infinite? If it is not infinite, then does it have a wall? What would happen if you ran into the edge of space? These are all problems that have to do with the boundary condition of space.

As it turns out, space can be curved. It is possible that space is curved in such a way that there is no boundary to space. Think of it like the surface of earth. The Earth is curved such that it has no boundary. Ie: You cannot walk off the edge of the earth.

But space and time are not separate. They are one entity called spacetime. It is possible that time is curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation. Think of the graph of the line 1/x. The curvature of time continues toward the moment of creation and approaches it, but never reaches. Thus we have no boundary, and no contradictions that come from them.

Make any sense? Remember: your ability to rationalize the science is not relevant. What matters is that the math works out. Many very odd things happen in science that defy common sense. (ALL of Quantum Mechanics) But as long as it works on paper, it works.

 

[Kips]

Peeze: I agree with your tangability statement. Although you bring up a good point, however, I must ask of you- we have wind tests to find wind, but do we have divinity tests to find god? If a man suddenly sprang back to life and I had my handy-dandy divinometer on me, would it suddenly be reading off the charts?

Also, that burst of energy doesn't necessarily create life, but it begins the process that does so. Think of it as a catalyst that sets off a chain of events which will lead to life eventually.

 

[AltF4]

I would prefer the word "observable" rather than tangible. We can easily confirm the existence of lots of things that are not "tangible" like radio waves. We can do so because they are observable, even if only in an indirect way.

You cannot observe radio waves with any of your senses. They do not make sound, taste touch, etc... Yet we confirm their existence indirectly. They are observable.

The concept of god is invariably devised in such a way as to make it unobservable. No matter how you try, you cannot observe god, be it directly or indirectly. And those who claim to have cannot reproduce their observations.

This is why there are skeptics. If I told you there was a fire breathing dragon in my garage, you'd ask to see it before you assumed it existed. Why then should anyone believe in a magical man in the sky without having observed him in any direct or indirect way?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

But what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

[lonejedi]

The question was about causation. Stop trying to change the question. It makes it hard to discuss things when you change the subject without notice.

You still haven't answered my question, neither have I changed the subject, you have. I asked about how the earth came to be, not the question of if the earth exists. Im staying with the subject, and you're the one avoiding it.

Alt, has this theory been proven, or is this just an idea of what Hawkings believes. I realize Hawkings is a VERY intelligent man, but is this more of an idea of what he believes than a theory.

 

[AltF4]

That's a good question, Jedi. (I love saying that)

The "No Boundary" boundary condition is a consistent theory that can explain the creation of the universe without the necessity of a god figure. Whether or not the theory corresponds to our universe is not currently known. But it could, and that's what's important.

You see, it is possible that the universe just simply "is" and was never actually created. Thus it requires no "creator".

Before Hawking developed this theory, it was a common argument to say "Well, clearly the universe MUST have been created, and it MUST have been created by someone or something." But we now know that this is not true, it is possible that there was no creation.

Even if experiment shows that time is not curved sufficiently to confirm the "no boundary" condition, it is conceivable that other similar theories can attest to the non-creation. The door has been opened, so-to-speak. And it is no longer necessary for a god to be present to explain the creation (or lack there-of) of the universe. That is what makes the theory so significant.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I know this might seem very off-topic, but I can't help but wonder how you are against the circumcision of baby's, but for abortion. That just baffles my mind.

The same reason why I don't have a problem losing some blood for a lab sample but have a major problem if someone wants to cut off my nose. One is the destruction of some cells, the other is the disfigurement of an individual.

^ doesn't have anything to do with the current question.

Here's something that I want explained Snex. Where did all these evolutions come from? You'll say a cell. Well where did that cell come from, you'll say the big bang, which you will then say came from a super nova exploding, but where did that super nova come from? These things can't just exist, that would defeat logic. And if you say they can, then why can't God exist?

How can this world be without something being able to exist before that. I'm sorry if I missed this post, if you could link me to it, that would be wonderful.

Well, then you get into infinite causes. What caused the creation of the universe. Okay, what created that and what created that and what created that etc. And if you say that god created the world and nothing existed before him, then WTF? You can't believe that the universe always existed but you can believe that god did? That's just self contradictory.

^ the question of causation comes up.

No it's not. Here's my point. I believe that God was here, by faith. So for you to believe that something was always here, and didn't come from something, then you are using the same faith that I am, and it's now not based on logic, but what you think you happened. So when you question my belief in a God that always was, you have to question your belief in particles that always were.

Yes, I have faith based on logic while you have faith without logic. Sums it up pretty well. The world is here. I can touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it and see it. The world was here yesterday, the day before that and the day before that. This is where the faith and logic come in, I believe (have faith) that the world existed before I was born. It logically follows that I could not exist as I am now in this world unless it existed before my conception. Now it logically follows that the universe has always existed and I have faith that it did because otherwise I wouldn't exist in it.

You, on the other hand, believe in the existence of a being without any proof or logical argument (basis) of its existence.

^ I contend that you believe in stuff for no good reason.

You don't get my point, Im not talking about the earth. Im talking about how the earth got here, you have no proof of how the earth came together, because everything had to have an origin. If the earth came from the Big Bang, well where did that come from, and so on.

The question was about causation. Stop trying to change the question. It makes it hard to discuss things when you change the subject without notice.

^ I bring up the point that you are going crazy.

You still haven't answered my question, neither have I changed the subject, you have. I asked about how the earth came to be, not the question of if the earth exists. Im staying with the subject, and you're the one avoiding it.

And you're completely Orange Julius in a sandstorm nuts. Good job.

Gamer4fire: You believe in tangibles. So because a god isn't a tangible being you feel its illogical to believe in him? In that case how do we know that the wind exists. Because we see the results of wind, trees blowing etc, etc. Faith in a God is based on the logic that humans can't see god but knows he exists because great explosions of energy don't create life.

Because I can feel the wind, see the wind (if it contains fluorine or another visible gas or possibly smoke), smell the wind when someone breaks it, etc. I can also measure wind speed, volume etc.

And I don't see how you equate the big bang with abiogenesis... moron.

 

[lonejedi]

^ doesn't have anything to do with the current question.



^ the question of causation comes up.



^ I contend that you believe in stuff for no good reason.




^ I bring up the point that you are going crazy.



And you're completely Orange Julius in a sandstorm nuts. Good job.



Because I can feel the wind, see the wind (if it contains fluorine or another visible gas or possibly smoke), smell the wind when someone breaks it, etc. I can also measure wind speed, volume etc.

And I don't see how you equate the big bang with abiogenesis... moron.

Dude, I admited to the off topic part of the abortion thing, and that was way before that. I posted the abortion thing way before we got on to that subject. I love how you're avoiding this by claiming im off topic and calling me crazy.

This is what I want to know, and I've been saying this for the past posts. How is believing in the Universe always existed, and believing a God always existed any different? I'm not talking about Earth, Im talking about the particles, if you bash me for believing in something that I cannot see, you should re-look at your argument.

Thank You Alt for actually responding to me, instead of being a bad example of a debater by trying to stray away from the subject by using childish name calling. But here's my question, if we're not 100% sure of this theory, doesn't believing this require just as much faith as a religion?

 

[cF=)]

But here's my question, if we're not 100% sure of this theory, doesn't believing this require just as much faith as a religion?

A theory is never 100% sure, but it's the best explanation of a natural phenomenon we have. These theories evolve, change, adapt over time just like everything else in sciences. Energy and time has been put into these laws and principles, they don't pop out of someone's head, there's a load of experiments surrounding each and every equations you'll see.

Back then, the debate could've ended with someone saying "if you're not sure the Earth is flat or round, then why can you disprove god?". Religious people hide in the remains of vitalism, but they got less and less to grasp to everyday. Now, you're asking us why we aren't sure of how the Universe "began", and this is the proof you still want to test science to its limits and then insert your god in the scheme. Appeal to ignorance I say.

 

[Sandy]

My faith in God comes from what the Bible teaches. It says that God made the world in six days, and so I believe it. The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead, and so I believe it. If you don't Believe in the Bible, then what do you base your faith on?

 

[cF=)]

My faith in God comes from what the Bible teaches. It says that God made the world in six days, and so I believe it. The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead, and so I believe it. If you don't Believe in the Bible, then what do you base your faith on?

This actually explains a lot on your behaviour. In every topic I saw you posting in, you always repeat stuff you were told, always without any critical thoughts. An overexposure to irrational books is wrong...

We don't need "faith", period.

 

[Sandy]

You really have no idea what it means to be born again, cF=). It is when a person sees their separation from God and need for salvation and finds it in God's Son. It is being saved from their sins, something that you haven't been, and so have no idea of its real meaning. Being born again is living a new life in obedience to God and not the sinful nature. Its becoming a new man in Christ Jesus. And please do not confuse that with these so called born again Christians who talk in tongues and preach healing and stuff, they haven't got a clue and should be avoided. That is why I say do not go to church for it has lost the plot completely. Being born again has nothing to do with supernatural manifestations or emotional highs, its about being saved from our sins.

 

[cF=)]

Whatever. If you needed a book to teach you morals SO BAD, then do it. The problem I see with any deity is people taking it too seriously, because at that time, what did they knew about cosmic movements and quantum particles? Nothing. I see the Bible to be an explanation to the world, based on the knowledge people had at that time.

The Earth is not 3000 years old, but when it was written, people couldn't even imagine a number bigger. It meant "the Earth's really old", nothing more or less. But nowadays, people think this information is completely true which contradicts our current knowledge (you know, the one which had 2000 years to evolve...)

I see nothing wrong with the Bible if it's not took literally. It's a pretty basic moral book which I think people wrongly interpreted over time.